Opinion ID: 6111331
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: rluipa

Text: As indicated, the circuit court's order mentioned but did not analyze Muntaqim's claims under RLUIPA and failed to provide any findings under RLUIPA. See Holt v. Hobbs , --- U.S. ----, 135 S. Ct. 853 , 190 L.Ed.2d 747 (2015) (RLUIPA analysis). Muntaqim had the burden to request those findings if he wished to preserve the RLUIPA issue for appeal. TEMCO Const., LLC v. Gann , 2013 Ark. 202 , at 9, 427 S.W.3d 651 , 657. We therefore decline to consider whether a preliminary injunction was appropriate under RLUIPA. Affirmed. Hart, J., would take as a case.