UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6642
WALTER DELANEY BOOKER, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
M. E. ENGELKE, Director of Food Services; N. GREGG, State Dietitian; H.
PONTON, Regional Administrator, Western; L. FLEMING, Warden; M.
BROYLES, FOMB; Q. REYNOLDS, Unit Manager; J. COMBS, Assistant Warden;
BRYANT, Sergeant; CHOW HALL OFFICERS, C and D side; WITT, Correctional
Officer; MARCUS ELAM, Regional Administrator, Western; SGT. KIMBERLIN;
E. PEARSON, Warden-Greensville; A. ANDERSON, GCC Food Operations
Director; CREQUE, GCC Food Services Manager; S. TAPP, GCC Ombudsman; K.
PHILLIPS, GCC Ombudsman,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (7:16-cv-00084-JLK-RSB)
Submitted: September 29, 2020 Decided: December 3, 2020
Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Walter Delaney Booker, Jr. Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Walter Delaney Booker, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders granting Defendants’
motions for summary judgment in Booker’s action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and
the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc to 2000cc-
5. After reviewing the record, we are satisified that, even assuming the Defendants’
policies substantially burdened Booker’s free exercise rights under the Religious Land Use
and Institutionalized Persons Act and the First Amendment, the policies were reasonably
related to the prison’s legitimate penological interests in balancing inmates’ religious
dietary restrictions with the agency’s operational, budgetary, and administrative concerns,
and so affirm on that basis. On all other claims, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Booker v. Engelke, No. 7:16-cv-00084-JLK-RSB (W.D. Va., Mar. 22, 2018
& Mar. 26, 2019). We further deny Booker’s motion for injunctive relief pending appeal.
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
2