of its facts. In Caldwell, the prison had established a smoking policy. Certain common areas were designated nonsmoking; the dining hall had a nonsmoking area; prisoners determined whether work areas would be smoking or nonsmoking, and two of the prison’s housing units were designated nonsmoking. In this context, the Court concluded that it could “not find that the Director’s failure to constantly segregate smokers from nonsmokers constitutes ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ and it certainly cannot find that plaintiff’s occasional exposure to smoke drifting over from designated ‘smoking’ areas violates the Eighth Amendment.” 729 F.Supp. at 6-7. Other cases in which courts found that claims failed to implicate the Eighth Amendment include Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878 F.2d 846 (5th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>), and Gorman v. Moody, 710 F.Supp. 1256, 1262
holding that 1986 surgeon generals report on effects of environmental tobacco smoke did not constitute significant fact creating new legal situation which would allow for relitigation of plaintiffs request for a smokefree confinement holding that denial of a request for reimbursement for travel expenses did not constitute an adverse employment action holding citys termination of plaintiffs contracts and publishing negative news report did not constitute the deprivation of a liberty interest even though a significant part of plaintiffs business had involved projects for the city holding that placing a prisoner in disciplinary confinement clearly effects liberty interest holding that the plaintiffs disciplinary segregated confinement for thirty days did not present the type of atypical significant deprivation in which a state might conceivably create a liberty interest