Michael Rogers v. Chris Rich

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: March 22, 2024
• Docket: 22-7167
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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