Arkansas prisoner Christopher Deaton appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint asserting violations of his constitutional rights and rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. The district court dismissed the complaint partially under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and partially on summary judgment. Upon careful de novo review, we find no basis for reversal. See Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (standard of review for § 1915A dismissal); Seltzer-Bey v. Delo, 66 F.3d 961, 963 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review for summary judgment). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

dissenting.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Holt v. Hobbs, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1490, 188 L.Ed.2d 391 (2014), to consider the following question: “Whether the Arkansas Department of Correction’s grooming policy violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., to the extent it prohibits petitioner from growing a one-half-inch beard in accordance with his religious beliefs.” Id. at 1512. The case was argued on October 7, 2014, and a decision is likely to be issued soon.

This case is factually distinguishable from Holt, because appellant Deaton — like the prisoner in Fegans v. Norris, 537 F.3d 897 (8th Cir. 2008)—claims a right based on RLUIPA to grow a full beard in accordance with his religious beliefs. But the Court’s reasoning in Holt will inform how Deaton’s claim should be analyzed and whether Fegans has continuing vitality. In the interest of judicial economy, I would hold this case briefly pending a decision in Holt rather than burden Mr. Deaton with the need to file a petition for writ of certiorari to secure an order granting cer-*994tiorari, vacating this court’s decision, and remanding for further consideration in light of Holt.