Opinion

Ronnie Cross v. Virginia Beach Correctional Center

  • 865 F.2d 1257
  • 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 319
  • 1989 WL 1098
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Jan 6, 1989
Status
Unpublished
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 17.1%

The opinion

865 F.2d 1257

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Ronnie CROSS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

VIRGINIA BEACH CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 88-7717.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 26, 1988.

Decided: Jan. 6, 1989.

Ronnie Cross, appellant pro se.

Becky A. Powhatan (Willcox & Savage, PC), for appellee.

Before JAMES DICKSON PHILLIPS, MURNAGHAN and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Ronnie Cross, a Virginia prisoner, appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 . Cross's claim arose from the prison's negligent failure to provide a pork substitute at some meals so that Cross could comply with the dictates of his Muslim religion. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit.

2

Prisons are not required to serve a special diet if inmates can voluntarily refrain and maintain an adequate diet. Abernathy v. Cunningham, 393 F.2d 775 (4th Cir.1968). Cross does not state a constitutional claim for inadequate nutrition merely because there were occasional incidents of his being served food he considered inedible. Lunsford v. Reynolds, 376 F.Supp. 526 (W.D.Va.1974). Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court.

3

We decline to adopt the portion of the district court's opinion expanding the holdings of Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986) and Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344 (1986) to claims arising under the First Amendment. Because Cross's claim may be decided on other grounds, we do not find it necessary to address the issue at this time. We dispense with oral argument because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively.

4

AFFIRMED.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.