Michael Rogers v. Chris Rich, No. 22-7167 (4th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-7167 MICHAEL DWAYNE ROGERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHRIS RICH; JUDGE BETTY BROWN, Defendants -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Michael Dwayne Rogers, a North Carolina inmate, commenced this action alleging violations of his rights under the First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 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
