Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

959 F.2d 231

Docket No. 91-7735.

Cooper v. Rogers

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted: February 21, 1992 Decided: March 30, 1992

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1992-03-30

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently May 2007

21 federal appellate ·

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Turner v. Safley · Ali v. Dixon

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1992-03-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Richard David Cooper, Appellant Pro Se.

Ronald Mark Levitan, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before HALL, MURNAGHAN, and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

¶1

Richard David Cooper appeals from the district court's order denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988). Cooper contends that Appellees refuse to serve him kosher breakfasts that he is required to eat according to the religious tenants of Orthodox Judaism and is entitled to have under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. After reviewing the record, we agree with the district court's conclusion that Cooper failed to produce sufficient evidence to survive a motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether prison policy impinged upon his free exercise rights. Accordingly, we affirm on that portion of the district court's order. Cooper v. Rogers, No. CA89-640 (D. Md. Nov. 4, 1991). We do not address the district court's alternative holding that Appellees' policies and practices regarding the availability of kosher breakfasts were reasonable under the standard outlined in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987). See Ali v. Dixon, 912 F.2d 86, 89 (4th Cir. 1990).

¶2

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

/959/f2d/231 · .json · Public domain