Warren CHASE; Curtis L. Wright, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Marc Cannadi; Troy L. Jones-Bey; Dwayne Doucett; Gregory Lawrence; John R. Ashby; Kevin Fuller; James Sydnor; Terry Dorsey; Charles Thomas; James Folks; David Bright; Tyrese Jordan; Michael L. Talley; Jean Bernard Germain; Anthony Hughley; Samuel Parr; Thaddeus Donaldson; Raymond Plunkett; Edward W. Jefferson; Darlos Hutton; G.W. Jones, Plaintiffs, v. MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL ADJUSTMENT CENTER, dietary department, the dietary contractors and each of its dietary employees, workers and custodians; Correctional Food Services Management, an independent contractor; C.F.M., an Independent Contractor; Thomas R. Corcorn, Warden; Lisa Alexander, Corporal; Donna Hansen, Lieutenant; Sizzler, Dietary Employee; Marve Morrison; Pat Donovan; James Smith, Chief of Security; Cecile Leak; Stuart Simms, Secretary Department of Public Safety; William W. Sondervan; Jack Kavanagh, Assistant Commissioner; Frank C. Sizer, Jr., Chief Commissioner; Federal Bureau of Investigation; Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; State of Maryland, Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, division of support services; United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division; Ms. Kenyon, Defendants-Appellees

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit2002-03-22No. No. 01-7736

31 F. App'x 140

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

PER CURIAM.

Warren Chase and Curtis Wright appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Maryland Corree tional Adjustment Center and several of its employees. Chase and Wright claimed that the prison diet was in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s bar against cruel and unusual punishment. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Chase v. Maryland Correction, No. CA-00-1509-CCB (D. Md. filed Sept. 24, 2001; entered Sept. 25, 2001). 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.