From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McKenzie v. Fabian

United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Sep 11, 2009
Civil No. 07-4441 (PAM/JSM) (D. Minn. Sep. 11, 2009)

Summary

upholding weight limit on incoming mail because the policy "is rationally related to its objective of preventing contraband from entering the prison and taking into account the finite resources of the prison"

Summary of this case from Simmons v. Liedel

Opinion

Civil No. 07-4441 (PAM/JSM).

September 11, 2009


ORDER


This matter is before the Court on two Report and Recommendations ("R R") of Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron, one dated June 9, 2009, and another dated August 13, 2009. In the June 9 R R, Magistrate Judge Mayeron recommended that Plaintiff's Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss be denied. In the August 13 R R, Magistrate Judge Mayeron recommend that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. Plaintiff failed to file objections to either R R in the time period permitted. The Court therefore ADOPTS both R Rs. (Docket Nos. 42 60).

Also pending before the Court is Defendants' Second Motion to Extend the Trial Date. Because Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and Plaintiff's claims are dismissed, the Motion to Extend the Trial Date is dismissed as moot.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Magistrate Judge Mayeron's R Rs (Docket Nos. 42 60) are ADOPTED;
2. Plaintiff's Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss (Docket No. 34) is DENIED;
2. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 19) is GRANTED; and
3. Defendants' Second Motion to Extend Trial Date (Docket No. 57) is DENIED as moot; and
4. The Complaint (Docket No. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.


Summaries of

McKenzie v. Fabian

United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Sep 11, 2009
Civil No. 07-4441 (PAM/JSM) (D. Minn. Sep. 11, 2009)

upholding weight limit on incoming mail because the policy "is rationally related to its objective of preventing contraband from entering the prison and taking into account the finite resources of the prison"

Summary of this case from Simmons v. Liedel

In McKenzie, while evaluating an access-to-courts claim, the court stated that the "plaintiff must be able to prove that defendants intentionally restricted his access to the courts and that it was the[ir] actions that actually prevented him from litigating his claim with the Minnesota Court of Appeals."

Summary of this case from Allen v. Lopez

explaining that actual injury is required regardless of the constitutional provision at issue

Summary of this case from Allen v. Lopez
Case details for

McKenzie v. Fabian

Case Details

Full title:Mwati McKenzie, Plaintiff, v. Joan Fabian, Commissioner of Corrections…

Court:United States District Court, D. Minnesota

Date published: Sep 11, 2009

Citations

Civil No. 07-4441 (PAM/JSM) (D. Minn. Sep. 11, 2009)

Citing Cases

Allen v. Lopez

Instead the prisoner must show that this conduct actually prevented the prisoner from litigating the…

Wilson v. Harry

See also Hall v. Johnson, 224 F. Supp. 2d 1058, 1060 (E.D.Va. 2002) (upholding policy where all general…