Court Opinion

ID: 9953921
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-23 21:02:01.734851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:56.462155
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7167      Doc: 14        Filed: 03/22/2024     Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7167

        MICHAEL DWAYNE ROGERS,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        CHRIS RICH; JUDGE BETTY BROWN,

                            Defendants - Appellees,

                     and

        NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; ERIC HOOKS;
        WENDELL JACKSON,

                            Defendants.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:19-cv-00417-WO-JLW)

        Submitted: February 29, 2024                                   Decided: March 22, 2024

        Before GREGORY, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Michael Dwayne Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. James Trachtman, Assistant Attorney General,
        NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7167      Doc: 14         Filed: 03/22/2024    Pg: 2 of 3

        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7167       Doc: 14         Filed: 03/22/2024      Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Michael Dwayne Rogers, a North Carolina inmate, commenced this action alleging

        violations of his rights under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the

        Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc to

        2000cc-5. On the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court granted summary

        judgment to Defendants Chris Rich and Betty Brown. Rogers appeals.

               On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th

        Cir. R. 34(b). Although Rogers’ informal brief disputes the district court’s determination

        that Rogers’ right to practice his religion was not substantially burdened, the informal brief

        does not meaningfully challenge the court’s conclusion that the prison policies at issue

        were the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. See

        Greenhill v. Clarke, 944 F.3d 243, 250 (4th Cir. 2019) (stating elements of RLUIPA claim).

        As a result, Rogers has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v.

        Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document;

        under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”).

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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

                                                      3