Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
12-7370•Ha Nasi Salut Vayi Yisrael, f/k/a Keith Kennard Carter v. Chaplain Yvonne Beasley
12-7370Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit01.04.2013
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7370
HA NASI SALUT VAYI YISRAEL, f/k/a Keith Kennard Carter,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CHAPLAIN YVONNE BEASLEY; CHAPLAIN M. BULLOCK, SR.; ROBERT
C. LEWIS, Director of Prisons; BETTY BROWN, Department of
Corrections Chaplain Director; JACKIE PARKER, Food and
Nutrition Director; G. J. BRANKER, Warden; JIMMIE BINFORD,
Central Prison Food Service Supervisor; CHAPLAIN SPEERS,
Central Prison Head Chaplain,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:08-ct-03079-H)
Submitted: February 28, 2013 Decided: April 1, 2013
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ha Nasi Salut Vayi Yisrael, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly D.
Grande, Oliver Gray Wheeler, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Ha Nasi Salut Vayi Yisrael appeals the district
court’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendants on his
action alleging violations of his constitutional rights under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) and the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc
(2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons
stated by the district court. Yisrael v. Beasley, No.
5:08-ct-03079-H (E.D.N.C. July 17, 2012). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the material before this court and argument will
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.