Grady Newingham v. Benny Magness

292 F. App'x 523
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedAugust 21, 2008
Docket07-2161
StatusUnpublished

This text of 292 F. App'x 523 (Grady Newingham v. Benny Magness) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Grady Newingham v. Benny Magness, 292 F. App'x 523 (8th Cir. 2008).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmates Grady Newingham and Malik Khabir appeal three interlocutory orders entered in their action chai- *525 lenging prison dietary and grooming policies under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-l(a)(l)-(2). We lack jurisdiction in this appeal to review two of the orders — one denying leave to amend the complaint and the other dismissing certain defendants — because the orders were not final when this appeal was filed, and did not otherwise qualify for interlocutory appeal. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292; Kassuelke v. Alliant Techsys., Inc., 223 F.3d 929, 930-31 (8th Cir .2000).

As to the order denying a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of the grooming policy, we conclude that the district court 1 employed the proper legal analysis under RLUIPA and did not err in determining that plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm. See Fegans v. Norris, 537 F.3d 897 (8th Cir.2008) (upholding Arkansas grooming policies against RLUIPA challenge); Hamilton v. Schriro, 74 F.3d 1545, 1550-51 (8th Cir.1996); see also Safety-Kleen Sys., Inc. v. Hennkens, 301 F.3d 931, 935 (8th Cir.2002) (standard of review); Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir.1981) (en banc) (preliminary injunction factors).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying preliminary injunc-tive relief. We also deny plaintiffs’ request for a writ of mandamus based on conclusory assertions of the district court’s bias, and we deny as moot plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate this appeal with Appeal No. 07-3835.

1

. The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C L Systems, Inc.
640 F.2d 109 (Eighth Circuit, 1981)
Hamilton v. Schriro
74 F.3d 1545 (Eighth Circuit, 1996)
Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc. v. Kevin Hennkens
301 F.3d 931 (Eighth Circuit, 2002)
Fegans v. Norris
537 F.3d 897 (Eighth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
292 F. App'x 523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grady-newingham-v-benny-magness-ca8-2008.