Michael Dwayne Rogers v. Chris Rich; Judge Betty Brown

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --