As to showers, if Petitioner had filed a § 1983 action regarding this allegation, he would fail to allege facts that raise a claim to a constitutional magnitude: The law is clear that bathing opportunities may be severely reduced or curtailed without violating a Eighth Amendment rights. See, e.g., Shakka v. Smith, 71 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir.1995) (inmate's constitutional rights were not violated where he was not given access to shower for three days); Davenport v. DeRobertis, 844 F.2d 1310, 1316-17 (7th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 908 (1988) (holding that one shower per week did not violate constitutional rights); Blackburn v. South Carolina, No. 0:06-2011-PMD-BM, 2009 WL 63254, at *17 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2009) (ten days without a shower and, after that, an average of one shower per week was not a constitutional deprivation). “There is simply no freestanding constitutional right to canteen privileges at all, much less a constitutional right to competitively priced canteen items, or any other issue related to the sale of canteen items.”

However, these instances do not weigh in favor of a finding that Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim or would be irreparably harmed in the absence of a preliminary injunction. See Blackburn v. South Carolina, C. A. No. 0:06-2011-PMD-BM, 2009 WL 632542, at *17 (D.S.C. March 10, 2009) (ten days without a shower and, after that, an average of one shower per week was not a constitutional deprivation). Moreover, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the balance of equities necessitates, or that the public interest would favor, entry of an injunction in this instance.

did not rise to the level of an Eight Amendment violation and collecting cases with the same finding), adopted by, 2019 WL 3759806 (S.D. W.Va. Aug. 7, 2019); Polley v. Wright, No. 4:18-cv-3464-JMC-TER, 2019 WL 2127065, at *3 (D.S.C. Feb. 6, 2019), adopted, 2019 WL 1306079 (D.S.C. Mar. 22, 2019) (“The law is clear that bathing opportunities may be severely reduced or curtailed without violating [] Eighth Amendment rights.”); Blackburn v. South Carolina, No. 0:06-cv-2011-PMD-BM, 2009 WL 632542, at *17 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2009), aff'd, 404 Fed.Appx. 810 (4th Cir. 2010) (finding ten days without a shower and, after that, an average of one shower per week was not a constitutional deprivation).

; Blackburn v. South Carolina, No. 0:06-2011-PMD-BM, 2009 WL 632542, at *17 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2009) (concluding that ten days without a shower when first placed in a segregation unit, followed by an average of one shower per week thereafter, was not a constitutional deprivation); see also Wiley v. Ky. Dep't of Corr., No. 11-97-HRW, 2012 WL 5878678, at *4 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 21, 2012) (finding that lack of running water, clean clothes, and linens for fourteen-day period did not state Eighth Amendment claim); Richmond v. Settles, 450 Fed.Appx. 448, 455 (6th Cir. 2011) (holding that allegations by inmate of denial of toilet paper, soap, running water, or the ability to shower for six days did not violate the Eighth Amendment); Metcalf v. Veita, No. 97-1691, 1998 WL 476254, at *2 (6th Cir. Aug. 3, 1998) (holding that an eight-day denial of showers did not result in serious pain or offend contemporary standards of decency under the Eighth Amendment); but see Rivera, supra, 795 Fed.Appx. at 174-75 (

; Blackburn v. South Carolina, No. 0:06-2011-PMD-BM, 2009 WL 632542, at *17 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2009) (concluding that ten days without a shower when first placed in a segregation unit, followed by an average of one shower per week thereafter, was not a constitutional deprivation); see also Wiley v. Ky. Dep't of Corr., No. 11-97-HRW, 2012 WL 5878678, at *4 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 21, 2012) (finding that lack of running water, clean clothes, and linens for fourteen-day period did not state Eighth Amendment claim); Richmond v. Settles, 450 Fed.Appx. 448, 455 (6th Cir. 2011) (holding that allegations by inmate of denial of toilet paper, soap, running water, or the ability to shower for six days did not violate the Eighth Amendment); Metcalf v. Veita, No. 97-1691, 1998 WL 476254, at *2 (6th Cir. Aug. 3, 1998) (holding that an eight-day denial of showers did not result in serious pain or offend contemporary standards of decency under the Eighth Amendment); but see Rivera, supra, 795 Fed.Appx. at 174-75 (

E.g., Davenport v. DeRobertis, 844 F.2d 1310, 1316-17 (7th Cir. 1988) (holding that allowing inmates in a segregation unit only one shower per week was "constitutionally sufficient" and did not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation); Johnson v. Fields, No. 2:14-cv-38, 2017 WL 5505991, at *10 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 16, 2017) ("Plaintiff's claim that he was denied a shower and clean clothes for twelve days is insufficient as a matter of law to maintain an Eighth Amendment claim."); Walker v. Dart, No. 09 C 1752, 2010 WL 669448, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 19, 2010) ("Being denied clean clothes for two weeks, though unpleasant, is not a deprivation serious enough to support an Eighth Amendment claim."); Blackburn v. South Carolina, No. 0:06-2011, 2009 WL 632542, at *17 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2009) (concluding that ten days without a shower when first placed in a segregation unit, followed by an average of one shower per week thereafter, was not a constitutional deprivation); see also Shakka, 71 F.3d at 165 (finding no Eighth Amendment violation where prisoner was not permitted to shower for three days after feces was thrown on him because he was given materials to clean himself and his cell). Similarly, the deprivation of a toothbrush or hygiene kit for several days does not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation.

The law is clear that bathing opportunities may be severely reduced or curtailed without violating a Eighth Amendment rights. See, e.g., Shakka v. Smith, 71 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir.1995) (inmate's constitutional rights were not violated where he was not given access to shower for three days); Davenport v. DeRobertis, 844 F.2d 1310, 1316-17 (7th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 908 (1988) (holding that one shower per week did not violate constitutional rights); Blackburn v. South Carolina, No. 0:06-2011-PMD-BM, 2009 WL 63254, at *17 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2009) (ten days without a shower and, after that, an average of one shower per week was not a constitutional deprivation).

That alone does not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation, and many courts have so held. E.g., Davenport v. DeRobertis, 844 F.2d 1310, 1316-17 (7th Cir. 1988) (holding that allowing inmates in a segregation unit only one shower per week was "constitutionally sufficient" and did not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation); Blackburn v. South Carolina, No. 0:06-2011-PMD-BM, 2009 WL 632542, at *17 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2009) (concluding that ten days without a shower when first placed in a segregation unit, followed by an average of one shower per week thereafter, was not a constitutional deprivation); Johnson v. Fields, No. 2:14-cv-38-FDW, 2017 WL 5505991, at *10 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 16, 2017) ("Plaintiff's claim that he was denied a shower and clean clothes for twelve days is insufficient as a matter of law to maintain an Eighth Amendment claim."). Consistent with the foregoing cases, the court concludes that Graham has failed to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment as to the lack of showers.

E.g., Davenport v. DeRobertis, 844 F.2d 1310, 1316-17 (7th Cir. 1988) (holding that allowing inmates in a segregation unit only one shower per week was "constitutionally sufficient" and did not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation); Johnson v. Fields, No. 2:14-cv-38-FDW, 2017 WL 5505991, at *10 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 16, 2017) ("Plaintiff's claim that he was denied a shower and clean clothes for twelve days is insufficient as a matter of law to maintain an Eighth Amendment claim."); Walker v. Dart, No. 09 C 1752, 2010 WL 669448, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 19, 2010) ("Being denied clean clothes for two weeks, though unpleasant, is not a deprivation serious enough to support an Eighth Amendment claim."); Blackburn v. South Carolina, No. 0:06-2011-PMD-BM, 2009 WL 632542, at *17 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2009) (concluding that ten days without a shower when first placed in a segregation unit, followed by an average of one shower per week thereafter, was not a constitutional deprivation); see also Shakka, 71 F.3d at 165 (finding no Eighth Amendment violation where prisoner was not permitted to shower for three days after feces was thrown on him because he was given materials to clean himself and his cell). Consistent with the foregoing cases, the court concludes that Harvey has failed to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment for which relief can be granted.

In Freeman v. Francis, 196 F.3d 641, 645 (6th Cir. 1999), the court stated: "The plain language of the statute [§ 1997e(a)] makes exhaustion a precondition to filing an action in federal court. . . . The prisoner, therefore, may not exhaust administrative remedies during the pendency of the federal suit." See Kitchen v. Ickes, 116 F. Supp. 3d 613, 625-26 (D. Md. 2015); see also Blackburn v. S. Carolina, C.A. No. 0:06-2011-PMD-BM, 2009 WL 632542, at *8 (D.S.C. Mar. 10, 2009) aff'd, 404 F. App'x 810 (4th Cir. 2010); Kaufman v. Baynard, CIV.A. 1:10-0071, 2012 WL 844480, at *12 (S.D. W. Va. Feb. 3, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, CIV.A. 1:10-0071, 2012 WL 844408 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 12, 2012); Miller v. McConneha, No. JKB-15-1349, 2015 WL 6727547, at *3-4 (D. Md. November 2, 2015). Accordingly, plaintiff's claim must be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.