WILLIAM SCOTT SOURS, APPELLANT,
v.
STEVE LONG; GEORGE LOMBARDI; DICK MOORE, APPELLEES; WILLIAM SCOTT SOURS, APPELLANT, V. JAMES D. PURKETT, SUPERINTENDENT, FARMINGTON CORRECTIONAL CENTER; MAJOR M.M. GUERRIN, CUSTODY SUPERVISOR II; SUSAN HARRIS, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER I; DAVID MOORE, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER I; RON BAKER, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER I; W.D. PETERSON, C.C.W.; JESSE BISHOP, C.C.A.; ARNOLD DEMENT, C.C.A., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The district court correctly granted summary judgment on the prisoner's claim that prison hair-grooming regulations interfered with his religious exercise.
A prisoner sued, alleging that prison rules requiring him to cut his hair violated his First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion by preven…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Free Exercise Of Religion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
William Scott Sours appeals the district court’s1 order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint claiming interfer ence with his first amendment right to freely exercise his religious beliefs. Sours alleged that defendants prohibited him from observing his “Vow of the Nazarite” by requiring him to cut his hair in accordance with Missouri Department of Corrections rules.
We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment. United States ex rel. Glass v. Medtronic, Inc., 957 F. 2d 605, 607 (8th Cir.1992). Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude the district court correctly granted summary judgment. See Iron Eyes v. Henry, 907 F. 2d 810 (8th Cir.1990) (Missouri prison hair-grooming regulation does not unconstitutionally infringe on prisoners’ free-exercise rights); see also Campbell v. Purkett, 957 F. 2d 535 (8th Cir.1992); Kemp v. Moore, 946 F. 2d 588 (8th Cir.1991) (per curiam), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 1958, 118 L.Ed.2d 560 (1992). We are bound to follow these decisions. Brown v. First Nat’l Bank in Lenox, 844 F. 2d 580, 582 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1260, 109 S.Ct. 20, 101 L.Ed.2d 971 (1988).
Accordingly, we affirm.
. The Honorable William L. Hungate, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, now retired.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Medtronic, Inc., 957 F.2d 605 (8th Cir. 1992)
- Eyes v. Dan Henry (Assistant Superintendent), 907 F.2d 810 (8th Cir. 1990)
- Brown v. First Nat'l Bank IN Lenox, 844 F.2d 580 (8th Cir. 1988)
- Brown et ux. v. First Nat'l Bank in Lenox, 487 U.S. 1260 (U.S. 1988)
- Bridge v. Lynaugh, 487 U.S. 1260 (U.S. 1988)
- Campbell v. Purkett, 957 F.2d 535 (8th Cir. 1992)
- Kemp v. Dick Moore, 946 F.2d 588 (8th Cir. 1991)