Cancel v. Mazzuca

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• confirming that “missing one religious service does not constitute a substantial burden on an inmate’s right to the free exercise of his religion”
• finding that an “isolated denial, such as having to miss a single religious service, does not constitute a substantial burden on a prisoner’s right to practice his religion”
• “[M]issing one religious service does not constitute a substantial burden on an inmate’s right to the free exercise of his religion.”
• dismissing a plaintiff's state-law claims because it was undisputed that all of the alleged acts or omissions of the defendants occurred within the scope of their employment with the Department of Corrections
• dismissing claims where plaintiff alleged that correction officer “prevented him, on one occasion, from attending a religious service” because “missing one religious service does not constitute a substantial burden on an inmate’s right to the free exercise of his religion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).