United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 08-1800/1834

___________

Roy Eugene Harris, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeals from the United States

* District Court for the

Jim Moore, Superintendent, Northeast * Eastern District of Missouri.

Correctional Center; Mary Reardon, *

Assistant Superintendent, Northeast * [UNPUBLISHED]

Correctional Center; James Gammon, *

Superintendent, Moberly Correctional; *

Tom Anderson, Assistant *

Superintendent, Moberly Correctional *

Center; Steve Long, Zone Director, *

Missouri Department of Corrections; *

Wendy Alexander; Terry Barnes; *

Sherry Blattel-Dunseith, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: October 14, 2009

Filed: October 15, 2009 

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Roy Harris brought suit, claiming various prison officials

violated his rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
1

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

-2-

(RLUIPA) by placing restrictions on the number of religious services he could attend

and on his incoming mail. The district court1

 granted summary judgment for

defendants. The court also denied Harris’s motion to alter or amend judgment, and

granted defendants’ motion for costs. Harris appeals.

Upon de novo review, we conclude the district court did not err in granting

summary judgment for defendants because Harris did not show that defendants’

actions placed a substantial burden on his ability to exercise his religion. See Van

Wyhe v. Reisch, Nos. 08-1409, 08-1413, 2009 WL 2879980, at *10 (8th Cir. Sept. 10,

2009) (to make out prima facie RLUIPA claim, inmate must show, as threshold

matter, that there is substantial burden on his ability to exercise his religion;

government policy imposes substantial burden on exercise of religion where it

significantly inhibits or constrains religious conduct or religious expression,

meaningfully curtails inmate’s ability to express adherence to his or her faith, or

denies inmate reasonable opportunities to engage in those activities that are

fundamental to inmate’s religion); cf. Patel v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 515 F.3d 807,

812, 814-15 (8th Cir. 2008) (plaintiff did not offer sufficient evidence to create

genuine issue of material fact as to whether his ability to practice his religion through

appropriate diet had been substantially burdened by prison meal plan, where he did

not show inadequacy of alternative means by which he could practice his faith); Weir

v. Nix, 114 F.3d 817, 819-21 (8th Cir. 1997) (holding that 3 hours of group worship

per week provided fundamentalist Christian inmate with reasonable opportunity to

exercise his religion).

We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting

defendants’ motion for costs, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) (costs – other than

attorney’s fees – should be allowed to prevailing party); Craftsmen Limousine v. Ford

Motor Co., No. 08-2214, 2009 WL 2748365, at *1 (8th Cir. Sept. 1, 2009) (standard
-3-

of review); Lampkins v. Thompson, 337 F.3d 1009, 1017 (8th Cir. 2003) (no abuse of

discretion in ordering costs for deposition transcripts and copying where district court

considered losing party’s indigency and incarceration), or in denying Harris’s motion

to alter or amend judgment, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (motion to alter or amend

judgment must be filed no later than 10 days after entry of judgment); Arnold v. Wood,

238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir. 2001) (time period for filing Rule 59(e) motion may not

be extended by court); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(6) (grounds for relief from

final judgment); Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 506 F.3d 1111, 1117 (8th Cir. 2007)

(standard of review for Rule 60(b) motion), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1493 (2008). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________