or allowing] someone else to take his property.” (Appellant’s Br. at 2.) We agree with the district court that none of these claims state a valid claim for relief. First, Plaintiff has not shown that his conflicting appointments for law library access and medical care have caused an actual violation of his First or Eighth Amendment rights. Plaintiff argues his constitutional rights are violated simply by the fact that he is occasionally forced to choose between going to the law library and receiving scheduled medical or dental care. However, unless his conflicting appointments have actually caused an injury to his First Amendment or Eighth Amendment rights, they are insufficient to give rise to a constitutional claim. Cf. Myers v. Hundley, 101 F.3d 542, 544 (8th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Second, Plaintiff cannot demonstrate a
holding that prisoners have a constitutional right to meaningful access to courts and examining the facility as a whole to determine whether such access was sufficient holding that prisoners could not succeed on first amendment right of access claim based on insufficient allowance for hygiene supplies and legal fees unless the inmates specifically assertfed that the amounts left over from their allowances after purchasing personal necessities caused actual injury to their right of access to the courts holding that although prison inmates have a first amendment right to access to the courts prison officials may regulate law library access including reasonable time place and manner of access taking into account the administrative needs of the institution holding that the first amendment right of access applies to a summary judgment motion in a civil case holding that denial of access to carbon paper and reproduction equipment and denial of facetoface access to other inmates did not deprive an inmate of his right of access to the courts