challenging this action should have been made before his complaint was dismissed in its entirety. 4 . Our circuit has considered the question of what constitutes a "substantial burden" on religious free olding that prison officials did not place a “substantial burden” on fundamentalist, separatist inmate’s free exercise rights by failing to provide a spiritual advisor who shared inmate’s separatist beliefs). 6 . Rejecting the substantial burden test would not mean that every possible restriction on religious practices is a violation. There may be inconveniences so trivial that they are most properly ignored. In this respect, this area of the law is no different from many others in which the time-honored maxim “de minimis non curat lex ” applies. Having said that, we wish 0th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Ashelman v. Wawrzaszek, 111 F.3d 674, 677
holding that district court erred in dismissing inmates complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies when court did not address inmates allegation that prison officials failed to provide necessary grievance forms holding that prison officials failure to accommodate inmates meal requirements during ramadan violated his free exercise rights holding inmates have no constitutional right to receive a particular or requested course of treatment and prison doctors remain free to exercise their independent medical judgment holding prison officials ultimately violated the plaintiffs right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment holding a muslim prisoners free exercise claim failed because even though the prison did not provide him with halal meat he could comply with his religious requirements by simply eating a vegetarian meal and therefore the disputed policy did not force the prisoner to violate his religion