Legal Opinion

Ragland v. Angelone

District Court, W.D. Virginia

Decided March 14, 2006No. 7:02 CV 00786PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION

TURK, Senior District Judge.

Plaintiff Omoro Ragland, an inmate of Virginia Department of Corrections (“VDOC”) who is proceeding pro se, complains that the VDOC’s grooming policy, Departmental Operating Procedure 864 (“DOP 864”), punishes him for his religious practice of wearing his hair and beard uncut by reducing his privileges, increasing the security restrictions to which he is subject, and reducing his opportunity to earn good conduct time. Ragland asserts that the penalty provisions of DOP 864 violate his rights under the First Amendment, as actionable under the Civil…

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Harlow v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  4. United States v. Diebold, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
  5. Turner v. SafleySupreme Court of the United States · 1987

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Smith v. OzmintDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 2006
  2. Peter Lewis v. Jerry SternesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2013
  3. Hicks v. PixleyDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2019
  4. Maxwell v. DoeDistrict Court, Virgin Islands · 2021
  5. Ragland v. PowellCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2006

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API