Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Colly Cascen v. Harold W. Clarke, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    30 views3 pages
    Colly Cascen, an inmate, filed a complaint against Virginia Department of Corrections officials alleging violations of his religious rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and Section 1983. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-06-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-7556

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Colly Cascen, an inmate, filed a complaint against Virginia Department of Corrections officials alleging violations of his religious rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and Section 1983. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    30 views3 pages

    Colly Cascen v. Harold W. Clarke, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Colly Cascen, an inmate, filed a complaint against Virginia Department of Corrections officials alleging violations of his religious rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and Section 1983. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding no reversible error in the district court's decision. The appellate court dispensed with oral argument, stating that the facts and legal issues were adequately addressed in the court materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 15-7556

    COLLY CASCEN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the State of Virginia
    Department of Corrections; ASST. WARDEN DAVID ROBINSON,
    Chief of Operations of the State of Virginia Department of
    Corrections; JOHN JABE, Deputy Director of Operations; J. C.
    COMBS, Warden at Wallens Ridge State Prison; REBECCA YOUNG,
    Operations Manager/Supervisor of the Wallens Ridge State
    Prison; BRENDA RAVIZEE, Institutional Ombudsman/Grievance
    Coordinator; QUINN REYNOLDS, Unit Manager/Supervisor at
    Wallens
    Ridge
    State
    Prison;
    GREGORY
    HOLLOWAY,
    Superintendent/Warden of Wallens Ridge State Prison,
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
    Norman K. Moon, Senior
    District Judge. (7:15-cv-00061-NKM-RSB)

    Submitted: May 13, 2016

    Decided:

    June 3, 2016

    Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Colly Cascen, Appellant Pro Se.


    Mark Rankin Herring, Attorney
    General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Colly Cascen appeals the district courts order granting
    summary judgment to the Defendants on his complaint asserting
    claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2012) and the Religious Land Use
    and

    Institutionalized

    2000cc-5 (2012).
    reversible error.

    Persons

    Act,

    42

    U.S.C.

    2000cc

    to

    We have reviewed the record and find no


    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

    by the district court.

    Cascen v. Clarke, No. 7:15-cv-00061-NKM-

    RSB (W.D. Va. Aug. 26, 2015).

    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

    You might also like