1517, 1522 (11th Cir.1995) (no substantial burden when religion did not require particular means of expressing religious view and alternative means of religious expression were available); Weir v. Nix, 114 F.3d 817 (8th Cir.1997) (considering alternatives in determining whether burden was “substantial”); Henderson v. Kennedy, 253 F.3d 12, 17 (D.C.CSr.2001) (finding that there is no “substantial burden” where alternatives were available); see, e.g., Patel v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 515 F.3d 807, 813-14 (8th Cir.2008) (finding that BOP’s refusal to provide halal meat meals did not constitute a substantial burden on inmate’s religion where inmate had not “exhausted alternative means of accommodating his religious dietary needs”); Watkins v. Shabazz, 180 Fed.Appx. 773, 775 (9th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Here, Defendants are accused of conspiracy to
holding that prison official could not deny inmate kosher meals based on rabbis determination that inmate was not jewish under judaic law holding that there was no substantial burden because defendants gave the inmate two alternatives  eating the nutritionally adequate meatsubstitute meals or finding an outside organization to provide halal meat holding that defendant had adequate alternatives in judicial and administrative remedies to the course he took holding orthodox jewish inmate was entitled to kosher meals holding that the district court did not err in finding that the plaintiff failed to provide adequate notice of new allegations where the plaintiffs complaint gave the defendants no notice of the specific factual allegations presented for the first time in the plaintiffs opposition to summary judgment