* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 1/24/97 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

DAVID P. COULTER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. HERBERT R. TILLERY, Commandant, USDB Ft. Leavenworth; JOHN DOES, John and Jane Does 1-100 are correctional employees, USDB Ft. Leavenworth,

Defendants-Appellees. No. 96-3282 (D.C. No. 96-3308-GTV) (D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, EBEL and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff-appellant David P. Coulter appeals from t he district court’s denial of his motion for injunction, filed in connection w ith his civil rights case before1 On October 28, 1996, the district court granted app ellant provisional leave

to proceed in this interlocutory appeal without pre payment of costs or fees. Accordingly, we need not rule on his separate motio n before this court to proceed in forma pauperis.

2 Although appellant listed an adequate vegetarian di et in his prayer for relief in his complaint before the district court and his pleadings before this court, he included no specific allegations, separate and apart from his arguments about the lack of disposable plates and utensils, as to why the prison vegetarian diet was not (continued...) -2- that court. 1 He also filed a motion for injunction with this c ourt seeking the same relief, namely that the prison provide a nutritious lacto-ovo vegetarian diet and allow him to use disposable plates and utensils, so that he can maintain his longheld religious beliefs and practices. Following appellees’ request for an extension of ti me to complete briefing ordered by this court on the motion for injunction, we granted the request contingent upon appellees providing disposable plat es and utensils to appellant until such time as this court rules on the motion f or injunction. Appellees filed their brief on January 9, 1997. Therein, they repr esent that “defendants are providing, and will continue to provide, the eating utensils [appellant] requests. Defendants also are willing to provide, and always have provided, a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet that meets all standard nutritional requirements.” Response at 1. Appellees suggest that the appeal may be moot. We agree that, in light of appellees’ willingness to provide appellant disposable plates and utensils, both the motion for injunction and appellant’s interlocu tory appeal are moot. 22 (...continued)

adequate. Further, the documents evidencing his ex haustion of administrative remedies reference only his complaints that the pri son stopped allowing his use of paper plates, Styrofoam cups, and disposable utensi ls. He has presented no evidence that he complained to prison officials abo ut any inadequacy in the vegetarian diet itself. Therefore, the single issu e preserved for review here is appellant’s claim regarding the appellees’ denial o f his request to use disposable plates and utensils. -3- This interlocutory appeal, together with appellant’ s motion for injunction, is DISMISSED as moot. Any outstanding motions are DENIED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT PER CURIAM