Wright v. Bennett

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 9, 2011
Docket10-7225
StatusUnpublished

This text of Wright v. Bennett (Wright v. Bennett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wright v. Bennett, (4th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7225

MALCOLM WRIGHT, JR., a/k/a Malcolm Y. Azariah,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BOYD BENNETT, Director of Prisons; BETTY BROWN, Head Chaplain Services; BETTY POPE, Head Dietician Other Paula Pope; MR. BRANKER, Warden; JACKIE PARKER, Chief of Food and Nutrition Services,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:08-ct-03129-BO)

Submitted: December 2, 2010 Decided: March 9, 2011

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Malcolm Wright, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Oliver Gray Wheeler, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Malcolm Wright, Jr., appeals a district court order

granting summary judgment to the Appellees and dismissing his

complaint brought under the Religious Land Use and

Institutionalized Persons Act, Pub. L. No. 106-274, 114 Stat.

804, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a) (2006) (“RLUIPA”). He also appeals

the order denying his motion for reconsideration. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s orders and affirm

for the reasons cited by the district court. See Wright v.

Bennett, No. 5:08-ct-03129-BO (E.D.N.C. Aug. 5, 2010; Aug. 25,

2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

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

Related

§ 2000cc-1
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a)
§ 2000c
42 U.S.C. § 2000c

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Wright v. Bennett, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-bennett-ca4-2011.