Phillip Fields v. David Robinson
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00455-HEH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Phillip Fields. [17-6231]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
PHILLIP W. FIELDS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
DAVID ROBINSON, Chief Corrections Operations; HAROLD W. CLARKE,
Director of the Department of Corrections; GREGORY HOLLOWAY, Regional
Administrator; TRACY RAY, Warden; RICK WHITE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:15-cv-00455-HEH)
Submitted: June 20, 2017
Decided: July 18, 2017
Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Phillip W. Fields, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy Hull Davidson, Assistant Attorney General,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
Phillip W. Fields appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to
Defendants and denying his cross-motion for summary judgment in his civil action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of
2000, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc-5 (2012). Applying a de novo standard of review,
Lawson v. Union Cty. Clerk of Court, 828 F.3d 239, 247 (4th Cir. 2016); Henson v.
Liggett Grp., Inc., 61 F.3d 270, 274 (4th Cir. 1995), we have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error in the district court’s judgment. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court.
Fields v. Robinson, No. 3:15-cv-00455-HEH
(E.D. Va. Jan. 19, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?