Case Name: Malcolm WRIGHT, Jr., a/k/a Malcolm Y. Azariah, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Boyd BENNETT, Director of Prisons; Betty Brown, Head Chaplain Services; Betty Pope, Head Dietician Other Paula Pope; Mr. Branker, Warden; Jackie Parker, Chief of Food and Nutrition Services, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-09
Citations: 415 F. App'x 476
Docket Number: No. 10-7225
Parties: Malcolm WRIGHT, Jr., a/k/a Malcolm Y. Azariah, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Boyd BENNETT, Director of Prisons; Betty Brown, Head Chaplain Services; Betty Pope, Head Dietician Other Paula Pope; Mr. Branker, Warden; Jackie Parker, Chief of Food and Nutrition Services, Defendants-Appel-lees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 415
Pages: 476–477

Head Matter:
Malcolm WRIGHT, Jr., a/k/a Malcolm Y. Azariah, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Boyd BENNETT, Director of Prisons; Betty Brown, Head Chaplain Services; Betty Pope, Head Dietician Other Paula Pope; Mr. Branker, Warden; Jackie Parker, Chief of Food and Nutrition Services, Defendants-Appel-lees.
No. 10-7225.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 2, 2010.
Decided: March 9, 2011.
Malcolm Wright, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Oliver Gray Wheeler, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Malcolm Wright, Jr., appeals a district court order granting summary judgment to the Appellees and dismissing his complaint brought under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, Pub.L. No. 106-274, 114 Stat. 804, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-l(a) (2006) ("RLUIPA"). He also appeals the order denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's orders and affirm for the reasons cited by the district court. See Wright v. Bennett, No. 5:08-ct-03129-BO, 2010 WL 3075519 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 5, 2010; 2010 WL 3362961, Aug. 25, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.