Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Abdul Mu'Min v. K. L. Simmons, 14-6401 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 14-6401 Visitors: 32
Filed: Jul. 31, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6401 ABDUL MU’MIN, f/k/a Travis Jackson Marron, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. K. L. SIMMONS; T. C. HOSTETTER, Hearings Officer; D. A. KINCAID, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:13-cv-00588-GEC) Submitted: July 23, 2014 Decided: July 31, 2014 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by u
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6401 ABDUL MU’MIN, f/k/a Travis Jackson Marron, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. K. L. SIMMONS; T. C. HOSTETTER, Hearings Officer; D. A. KINCAID, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:13-cv-00588-GEC) Submitted: July 23, 2014 Decided: July 31, 2014 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Abdul Mu’min, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Abdul Mu’min appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Mu’min’s motion for injunctive relief and expedited treatment and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Mu’min v. Kincaid, No. 7:13-cv-00588-GEC (W.D. Va. Feb. 19, 2014). * 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 * Mu’min’s RLUIPA claim was not properly before the district court. He did not clearly assert a desire to raise a RLUIPA claim until his motion to reconsider and at no time fairly communicated his intention to the district court prior to its ruling. Because the district court dismissed Mu’min’s civil action without prejudice, nothing prevents Mu’min from pursuing a RLUIPA claim in a new action. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer