United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-1916

___________________________

Christopher Deaton

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Arkansas Department of Correction; Ray Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of

Correction; Larry Norris, Former Director, Arkansas Department of Correction;

Larry May, Chief Deputy Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Raymond

Naylor, Hearing Officer Administrator, Arkansas Department of Correction;

Danny Burl, Warden, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Greg Harmon, Former

Warden, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Richard Todd Ball, Deputy Warden,

East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Dexter Payne, Deputy Warden, East Arkansas

Regional Unit, ADC; Steve Outlaw, Former Deputy Warden, East Arkansas

Regional Unit, ADC; Essie Clay, DHO, Arkansas Department of Correction;

Minnie L. Drayer, DHO, Arkansas Department of Correction; Lahan Ester, Former

DHO, Arkansas Department of Correction; Justine Minor, DHO, Arkansas

Department of Correction; Curtis Rolfe, Former DHO, Arkansas Department of

Correction; Lorie Taylor, DHO, Arkansas Department of Correction; Jeremy C.

Andrews, Chief Security Officer, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; DeAngelo

M. Earl, CSO, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Clinton Wade Hall, CSO, East

Arkansas Department of Correction; Clarence Kelley, CSO, East Arkansas

Regional Unit, ADC; Maurice Williams, CSO, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC;

Moses Jackson, Captain, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Wallace MacNary,

Captain, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Janice Gray, Law Library Supervisor,

East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Derrick Harris, Corporal, Arkansas

Department of Correction

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________
Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena

____________

 Submitted: November 4, 2014

 Filed: December 17, 2014

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas prisoner Christopher Deaton appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of

his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint asserting violations of his constitutional rights

and rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act of 2000,

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. The district court dismissed the complaint partially under

28 U.S.C. § 1915A and partially on summary judgment. Upon careful de novo

review, we find no basis for reversal. See Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th

Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (standard of review for § 1915A dismissal); Seltzer-Bey v.

Delo, 66 F.3d 961, 963 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review for summary judgment). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Holt v. Hobbs, 134 S. Ct. 1490 (2014),

to consider the following question: “Whether the Arkansas Department of

1

The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, adopting the reports and recommendations of the Honorable

Jerome T. Kearney, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of

Arkansas.

-2-
Correction’s grooming policy violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized

Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., to the extent it prohibits petitioner

from growing a one-half-inch beard in accordance with his religious beliefs.” Id. at

1512. The case was argued on October 7, 2014, and a decision is likely to be issued

soon.

This case is factually distinguishable from Holt, because appellant Deaton—like

the prisoner in Fegans v. Norris, 537 F.3d 897 (8th Cir. 2008)—claims a right based

on RLUIPA to grow a full beard in accordance with his religious beliefs. But the

Court’s reasoning in Holt will inform how Deaton’s claim should be analyzed and

whether Fegans has continuing vitality. In the interest of judicial economy, I would

hold this case briefly pending a decision in Holt rather than burden Mr. Deaton with

the need to file a petition for writ of certiorari to secure an order granting certiorari,

vacating this court’s decision, and remanding for further consideration in light of Holt.

______________________________

-3-