Walter Booker v. R. Timmons, No. 17-6402 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6402 WALTER D. BOOKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. R. TIMMONS, Unit Manager; B. M. CLAUDE,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: September 28, 2017 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Decided: October 2, 2017 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Walter D. Booker appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint raising claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012), the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc to 2000cc-5 (2012), and state law. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Booker v. Timmons, No. 1:14-cv-00555-JCC-IDD (E.D. Va. Sept. 23, 2014; July 14, 2015; Feb. 14, 2017). We deny the motion for injunctive relief pending appeal and 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.