UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7720
WALTER D. BOOKER,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
R. TIMMONS, Unit Manager; B. M. CLAUDE, Lieutenant; T.
ROBINSON, Sergeant; G. D. FAULCON, Sergeant; LIEUTENANT
TAYLOR; M. L. ROOK, Correctional Officer,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
A. DAVID ROBINSON, Chief of Corrections Operations;
WENDY S. HOBBS, Regional Administrator; EDDIE L. PEARSON,
Lead Warden; C. PARKER, Warden; J. HARRIS, Warden; C.
BOONE, Regional Ombudsman; S. TAPP, Human Rights Advocate;
K. WHITEHEAD, Grievance Coordinator; L. GOODE, Unit
Manager; D. DUGGER, Institutional Hearings Officer,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00555-JCC-IDD)
Submitted: March 29, 2016 Decided: April 7, 2016
Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Walter D. Booker, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret Hoehl O’Shea,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, John Michael
Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Virginia inmate Walter Booker appeals the district court’s
order denying his request for a preliminary injunction in this
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action. The district court denied the
requested injunction because Booker did not show that he could
satisfy any of the factors set forth in Winter v. Natural
Resources Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The court
made no specific findings of fact in reaching this conclusion.
Rule 52(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P., requires that the district court
make particularized findings of fact supporting its decision to
grant or deny a preliminary injunction; such findings are
necessary in order for an appellate court to conduct meaningful
appellate review. See H & R Block Tax Servs. LLC v.
Acevedo-Lopez, 742 F.3d 1074, 1078 (8th Cir. 2014); Kisano Trade
& Invest Ltd. v. Lemster, 505 F. App’x 147, 148 (3d Cir. 2012).
In the absence of any such specific findings, we are constrained
to conclude that the district court abused its discretion in
denying the requested injunction. See WV Ass’n of Club Owners &
Fraternal Servs., Inc. v. Musgrave, 553 F.3d 292, 298 (4th Cir.
2009) (stating standard of review). We accordingly vacate the
decision of the district court and remand for further
proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
4