Summary
In Jones and Emery, the courts relied upon persuasive case law from other circuits recognizing that generally, an absolute ban on inmate access to newspapers and magazines violates the First Amendment because it is considered an exaggerated response to legitimate penological needs.
Summary of this case from Ward v. RunionOpinion
Case No. 06-2051.
September 18, 2007
ORDER
Now on this 18th day of September 2007, there comes on for consideration the report and recommendation filed herein on August 21, 2007, by the Honorable James R. Marschewski, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. (Doc. 38). Also before the Court are Plaintiff's written objections to the report and recommendation (Doc. 39).
The court has reviewed this case de novo and, being well and sufficiently advised, finds as follows: The report and recommendation is proper and should be and hereby is adopted in its entirety. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 32) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's claims that he was provided an inadequate diet and his meals were served in an unsanitary environment. The motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's claim that his First Amendment rights were violated when he was denied access to newspapers or other media sources containing news coverage.
IT IS SO ORDERED.