Coleman v. Aramark

Fourth Circuit

Coleman v. Aramark

31 F. App'x 808

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 11, 2002

Docket01-7828

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 31 F. App'x 808 (Coleman v. Aramark) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coleman v. Aramark, 31 F. App'x 808 (4th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Coleman, an inmate at the Henrico County, Virginia, Jail, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp.2001). Coleman alleged in his complaint that he occasionally received incomplete meals or meals that contained items that were not on his medically prescribed soft diet. We assume without deciding that ARAMARK acted under color of state law for purposes of § 1983 by performing the traditional governmental function of providing food service at the Jail. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 54-56, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988). However, our review of the record discloses that Coleman alleged no significant injury as a result of receiving incomplete or incorrect meals. See Strickler v. Waters, 989 F.2d 1375, 1380-81 (4th Cir.1993). We therefore agree with the district court that Coleman failed to state a claim under § 1983 and find that this appeal is frivolous. We dispense with oral argument and dismiss the appeal because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before us and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Coleman, an inmate at the Henrico County, Virginia, Jail, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp.2001). Coleman alleged in his complaint that he occasionally received incomplete meals or meals that contained items that were not on his medically prescribed soft diet. We assume without deciding that ARAMARK acted under color of state law for purposes of § 1983 by performing the traditional governmental function of providing food service at the Jail. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 54-56, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988). However, our review of the record discloses that Coleman alleged no significant injury as a result of receiving incomplete or incorrect meals. See Strickler v. Waters, 989 F.2d 1375, 1380-81 (4th Cir.1993). We therefore agree with the district court that Coleman failed to state a claim under § 1983 and find that this appeal is frivolous. We dispense with oral argument and dismiss the appeal because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before us and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 F. App'x 808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-aramark-ca4-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack