Does the Court of Appeals erroneously define what constitutes a substantial burden upon religious practice and did it make erroneous and impermissible findings of fact and weighing of evidence at summary judgment?

Di J the Count oC Appeals erronecixsly deGne what Constitutes Substantial burden upon re\ig\ou$ practice and did It erroneous c\nd impermissible bindings oV Vact and tueighlng °C evidence °t Summary judgment k, Does a prisoner have * a £re«e Speech honesty CrHiSize , Pf^R n employees being eorrukp^ <xnd «S the. MVOCk rix Insolence v<Kgue or evenly troadrigVA Io ' X le <xgonnst ^pph'ed? HI. SlnoixU tye Supreme persona^ ^nvo)v ernenl tA<\93 clotty/?Counl define, req uir em ent toner properly 1 active remedies»$ available