Case Name: Phillip W. FIELDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 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
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-18
Citations: 693 F. App'x 201
Docket Number: No. 17-6231
Parties: Phillip W. FIELDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 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.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 201–202

Head Matter:
Phillip W. FIELDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 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.
No. 17-6231
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 20, 2017
Decided: July 18, 2017
Phillip W. Fields, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy Hull Davidson, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appel-lees.
Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion,
PER CURIAM:
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. § 2000ec 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, 2017 WL 253955 (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.
AFFIRMED