Court Opinion

ID: 9942800
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 21:00:43.719294+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:41.924536
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7265      Doc: 16        Filed: 02/20/2024   Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7265

        DOUGLAS A. HOGLAN,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        A. DAVID ROBINSON, Chief of Corrections Operations for VDOC; K. M.
        CROWDER-AUSTIN, Regional Ombudsman; A. POGUE, Western Region
        Operations Manager at VDOC; JAMES G. BRUCE, Manager of the VDOC Policy
        and Initiatives Unit; W. HUDSON, Postal Assistant, Green Rock Correctional
        Center; H. SIMS, Postal Assistant, Green Rock Correctional Center; CHARLES
        CRUMPLER, Operations Manager, Green Rock Correctional Center; K. WILSON,
        Investigator, Green Rock Correctional Center; BERNARD W. BOOKER, Former
        Warden, Green Rock Correctional Center; MELVIN DAVIS, Current Warden,
        Green Rock Correctional Center,

                            Defendants - Appellees,

                     and

        MARCUS ELAM, Regional Administrator; MELISSA WELCH, Operations
        Support Manager for VDOC,

                            Defendants.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:16-cv-00595-MFU-JCH)

        Submitted: December 1, 2023                               Decided: February 20, 2024
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7265      Doc: 16         Filed: 02/20/2024    Pg: 2 of 4

        Before THACKER, HARRIS, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Douglas A. Hoglan, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7265      Doc: 16         Filed: 02/20/2024      Pg: 3 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Douglas A. Hoglan appeals the district court’s order sustaining the Appellees’

        objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and granting summary

        judgment to the Appellees on Hoglan’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. We affirm.

               We review the district court’s summary judgment ruling de novo, “applying the

        same legal standards as the district court and viewing all facts and reasonable inferences in

        the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Ballengee v. CBS Broad., Inc., 968 F.3d

        344, 349 (4th Cir. 2020). In doing so, we afford “substantial deference to the professional

        judgment of prison administrators, who bear a significant responsibility for defining the

        legitimate goals of a corrections system and for determining the most appropriate means to

        accomplish them.” Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126, 132 (2003).

               We conclude that the Virginia Department of Corrections (“VDOC”) Operating

        Procedure (“OP”) 803.1 declaring that all incoming email with attached photographs and

        pictures must comply with the regulations applicable to personal photographs and pictures

        to be rationally related to a legitimate penological interest. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S.

        78 (1987) (listing four factors to consider when inmate is claiming a policy or regulation

        impinges upon a constitutional right). Pursuant to the Turner factors, we note that Hoglan

        has a readily available alternative means of receiving commercially distributed

        photographs of semi-nude individuals. And evidence in the record supports that without

        OP 803.1, VDOC staff members may be burden by additional screening processes if they

        were to be required for emails as well as paper mail. Finally, we hold that Appellant has

        not met his high burden of proving that OP 803.1 is merely an “exaggerated response to

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7265      Doc: 16          Filed: 02/20/2024     Pg: 4 of 4

        prison concerns.” Id. at 90. We are not at liberty to direct the VDOC as to what means

        would be most appropriate to meet its penological interests so long as the VDOC’s policy

        is reasonably related to those goals. Overton, 539 U.S. at 132.

               We further agree that the Appellees were entitled to qualified immunity on Hoglan’s

        claims concerning the disapproval of commercially available photographs sent by email

        and mail. In evaluating an official’s qualified immunity claim, the Court considers two

        issues: (1) “whether a constitutional violation occurred,” and (2) “whether the

        [constitutional] right violated was clearly established.” Hensley v. Price, 876 F.3d 573, 580

        (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotations omitted). Whether a violation occurred depends on

        whether the government acted reasonably in the specific circumstances before the court.

        Williams v. Strickland, 917 F.3d 763, 768 (4th Cir. 2019). Here, we affirm for the reasons

        thoroughly detailed by the district court.

               Accordingly, we affirm. 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

                                                     4