Full text
Grady NEWINGHAM, Malik A. Khabir, Appellants, v. Benny MAGNESS, Chairman, Arkansas Board of Correction; Drew Allen Baker, Vice Chairman, Arkansas Board of Correction; Kelly Pace, Arkansas Board of Correction; Mary Parker, Dr., Arkansas Board of Correction; Leroy Brownlee, Arkansas Board of Correction; W L Ferren, (Bill), Arkansas Board of Correction; J. Aaron Hawkins, Sr., Pastor, Arkansas Board of Correction; Mike Huckabee, Governor of Arkansas; Mike Beebe, Attorney General of Arkansas; Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Ray Hobbs, Deputy Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Grant Harris, Warden, Varner Unit, ADC; Thomas Hurst, Assistant Warden, Varner Unit, ADC; Kim Luckett, Assistant Warden, Varner Unit, ADC; Yolanda Clark, Captain, Varner Unit, ADC; Charles Freyder, Chaplin, ADC; Tim Moncrief, Assistant Warden, Varner Super Max, ADC; James Gibson, Assistant Director, ADC; David White, Warden, Maximum Security Unit, ADC; Justine Minor, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, ADC; Juanita Mathis, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, ADC; Minnie Drayer, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, ADC; Keith Waddle, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, ADC; Chris Coody, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, ADC; Lorie Taylor, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, ADC; Michael Hutchinson, Sgt., Varner Super Max, ADC; Kenneth Tillman, Lt., Varner Super Max, ADC; James Barnett, Captain, Varner Super Max, ADC; Jacqueline Owens, Disciplinary Officer, Varner Super Max, ADC; Brian Cockrell, Corporal, Maximum Security Unit, ADC; F. Raspberry, Sgt., Maximum Security Unit, ADC; Larry May, Assistant Director, ADC; Tommy James, Assistant Warden, Maximum Security Unit, ADC; Rick Toney, Warden, Varner Super Max, ADC; Ronald Bailey, Lt., Maximum Security Unit, ADC; Does, John & Jane, Appellees
PER CURIAM.
Arkansas inmates Grady Newingham and Malik Khabir appeal three interlocutory orders entered in their action chai- *525 lenging prison dietary and grooming policies under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA),
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-l(a)(l)-(2). We lack jurisdiction in this appeal to review two of the orders — one denying leave to amend the complaint and the other dismissing certain defendants — because the orders were not final when this appeal was filed, and did not otherwise qualify for interlocutory appeal. See
28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292; Kassuelke v. Alliant Techsys., Inc.,
223 F.3d 929, 930-31 (8th Cir .2000).
As to the order denying a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of the grooming policy, we conclude that the district court 1 employed the proper legal analysis under RLUIPA and did not err in determining that plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm. See Fegans v. Norris,
537 F.3d 897 (8th Cir.2008) (upholding Arkansas grooming policies against RLUIPA challenge); Hamilton v. Schriro,
74 F.3d 1545, 1550-51 (8th Cir.1996); see also Safety-Kleen Sys., Inc. v. Hennkens,
301 F.3d 931, 935 (8th Cir.2002) (standard of review); Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc.,
640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir.1981) (en banc) (preliminary injunction factors).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying preliminary injunc-tive relief. We also deny plaintiffs’ request for a writ of mandamus based on conclusory assertions of the district court’s bias, and we deny as moot plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate this appeal with Appeal No. 07-3835.
Footnotes
[1] The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
