UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DAVID S. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Intervenor, No. 95-8579 v. R. T. ANGELONE; W. P. ROGERS; D. R. GUILLOURY; K. SUTTON, C/O; M. ORNALAS, Defendants-Appellees. DAVID S. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, No. 96-6176 v. R. T. ANGELONE; W. P. ROGERS; D. R. GUILLOURY; K. SUTTON, C/O; M. ORNALAS, Defendants-Appellants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-95-599-AM) Submitted: October 31, 1997 Decided: December 10, 1997Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ No. 95-8579 affirmed and No. 96-6176 dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL David S. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Parker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia; Patricia Ann Millett, Michael Jay Singer, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OFJUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C., for Intervenor. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: David S. Davis appeals the district court's order denying hisrenewed motion for a temporary restraining order to require Defendants to return his religious necklace to him. Because Davis sought the same relief in the restraining order as in his underlying civil suit, we construe the order as denying a preliminary injunction. See Virginia v. Tenneco, Inc. , 538 F.2d 1026, 1029-30 (4th Cir. 1976). However, our review of the record reveals no abuse of discretion in the denial of relief. See South Carolina Dep't of Wildlife & Marine Resources v. Marsh , 866 F.2d 97, 99-100 (4th Cir. 1989); Wetzel v. Edwards , 635 F.2d 283, 286 (4th Cir. 1980). We therefore affirm the district court's order denying Davis' renewed motion for injunctive relief. 2The Defendants have cross appealed, asserting that the districtcourt erred in declining to address the constitutionality of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C.A. #8E8E # 2000bb-2000bb-4 (West 1994). In light of the Supreme Court's decision in City of Boerne v. Flores , ___ U.S. ___, 65 U.S.L.W. 4612 (U.S. June 25,1997) (No. 95-2074), that Congress lacked authority under the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to the states, we dismiss the Defendants' cross appeal as moot. We also deny as moot the Defendants' and the United States' motions to file briefs addressing this issue. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order denying Davis' motion for injunctive relief and dismiss as moot the Defendants' appeal from the district court's judgment which declined to rule on the constitutionality of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentionsare adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. No. 95-8579 - AFFIRMED No. 96-6176 - DISMISSED 3