United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 00-1877EA

_____________

Avery D. Williams, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * On Appeal from the United

* States District Court

Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas * for the Eastern District

Department of Correction; Perry, * of Arkansas.

Major, Chief of Security, North *

Central Unit; Steve Lively, Disciplinary * [Not To Be Published]

Hearing Officer, North Central Unit; *

Larry May, Warden/Center Supervisor, *

North Central Unit; David Guntharp, *

Grievance Administrator, Central *

Office. *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: April 3, 2001

 Filed: April 11, 2001

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and FAGG,

Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
1The Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of

the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-2-

Avery D. Williams, an Arkansas inmate, appeals from the District Court’s1

dismissal of his action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Freedom

Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §§2000bb-2000bb-4. Williams, a Rastafarian who

wishes to wear his hair in dreadlocks, claimed an Arkansas Department of Correction

grooming policy violated his First Amendment free exercise rights. After de novo

review, see Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F. 3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam), we

affirm.

A plaintiff may no longer look to RFRA in free exercise claims, as RFRA has

been declared unconstitutional. See City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 532-36

(1997). Dismissal of Williams&s free exercise claim also was proper. This Court has

repeatedly rejected similar First Amendment challenges to prison grooming

regulations, see Hamilton v. Schriro, 74 F.3d 1545, 1550-51 (8th Cir.), cert. denied,

519 U.S. 874 (1996); Campbell v. Purkett, 957 F.2d 535, 536-37 (8th Cir. 1992) (per

curiam); Dunavant v. Moore, 907 F.2d 77, 79 (8th Cir. 1990), and Williams&s

complaint did not allege any facts that would distinguish this case from the line of cases

upholding hair-length restrictions, see, e.g., Iron Eyes v. Henry, 907 F.2d 810, 814 (8th

Cir. 1990) (preventing prisoners from concealing contraband and avoiding confusion

in prisoner identification are valid penological interests rationally related to policy,

although contraband had never been found in any inmate&s hair, and it was difficult to

credit identification fears in light of prison&s failure to photograph inmates

systematically).

We also conclude Williams did not show circumstances warranting the

Magistrate Judge&s recusal. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994);

United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583 (1966). Williams further raises
-3-

claims and evidence not before the District Court, which we decline to consider. See

Ryder v. Morris, 752 F.2d 327, 332 (8th Cir.) (except for showing of manifest injustice,

this Court will not consider claims raised for the first time on appeal), cert. denied, 471

U.S. 1126 (1985). 

 Accordingly, we affirm. We deny all of Williams&s pending motions.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.