* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40719

Summary Calendar

PATRICK MAC JACKSON,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARSHALL HERKLOTZ, Southern Region Director,

Darrington Unit, ET AL.

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(9:95-CV-318)

February 19, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff Patrick Mac Jac kson appeals from the district

court’s dismissal for frivolousness and for failure to state a

claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), of his prisoner’s civil rights

complaint. Jackson claimed that his rights were violated during a

series of “lockdowns” in his prison in 1994 and 1995, which

resulted in his loss of food, exercise, and medical treatment. We

affirm.2

Jackson’s substantive claims were largely conclusional and

lacked a basis in evidence. Jackson’s first contention was that

the lockdown was conducted without justification. Yet as even he

concedes, the prison where he was housed was plagued by violence

during the relevant time period. The prison officials properly

exercised their discretion in responding to this dangerous

situation. S ee Buchanan v. United States

, 915 F.2d 969, 971-72

(5th Cir. 1990).

Jackson’s claim that the lockdown deprived him of hot meals is

similarly without merit. The state’s responsibility was to offer

meals sufficiently nutritious to ma intain Jackson’s health. S ee

Green v. Ferrell

, 801 F.2d 765, 770 (5th Cir. 1986). Jackson

proffered conclusory allegations that his meals caused him illness,

but he provided no proof of a constitutional violation. Mere

dissatisfaction with the flavor of prison food does not rise to the

level of a constitutional complaint. S ee LeMaire v. Maass

, 12 F.3d

1444, 1456 (9th Cir. 1993).

Likewise, Jackson has not provided evidence as to how the

lockdowns’ restrictions on outdoors recreation threatened his

health. Furthermore, Jackson’s conclusional allegations regarding

medical care failed to demonstrate any specific in stances where

prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his serio u s

medical needs. S ee Estelle v. Gamble

, 429 U.S. 97, 104-06 (1976).

Nor did Jackson prove that the prison’s classification system for

vio lent felons caused him any constitutional harm. Finally,3

Jackson’s complaint about the existence of a conspiracy to violate

his federal rights was conclusional and without support.

Jackson also complains about a numb er of procedural

deficiencies in the district court’s dismissal of his complaint.

We find that the district court employed its discretion properly in

choosing a method for investigating Jackson’s complaint. S ee

Graves v. Hampton

, 1 F.3d 315, 319 n.20 (5th Cir. 1993). The

district court gave ample consideration to Jackson’s claims, which

ultimately were found to be without merit.

Finally, Jackson argues that the district court erred in

failing to certify a class or grant a preliminary injunction. The

district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to take

either action, as Jackson failed to satisfy the threshold

requirements for either class cer tification or the granting of a

preliminary injunction. See Lightbourn v. County of El Paso , 118

F.3d 421, 423-24 (5th Cir. 1997); Lakedreams v. Taylor , 932 F.2d

1103, 1107 (5th Cir. 1991).

AFFIRMED.