Ronnie Cross v. Virginia Beach Correctional Center

865 F.2d 1257, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 319, 1989 WL 1098
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 6, 1989
Docket88-7717
StatusUnpublished

This text of 865 F.2d 1257 (Ronnie Cross v. Virginia Beach Correctional Center) 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
Ronnie Cross v. Virginia Beach Correctional Center, 865 F.2d 1257, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 319, 1989 WL 1098 (4th Cir. 1989).

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Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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

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.

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.

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.

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

Daniels v. Williams
474 U.S. 327 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Davidson v. Cannon
474 U.S. 344 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Lunsford v. Reynolds
376 F. Supp. 526 (W.D. Virginia, 1974)
Abernathy v. Cunningham
393 F.2d 775 (Fourth Circuit, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
865 F.2d 1257, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 319, 1989 WL 1098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronnie-cross-v-virginia-beach-correctional-center-ca4-1989.