Confining our review to the issues raised in the informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b), we find no reversible error and affirm the district court's judgment. Ballard v. Johns, No. 5:11-ct-03042-H (E.D.N.C. March 27, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Ballard v. Johns, 17 F.Supp.3d 511, 518 (E.D. N.C. ) (noting “civil detainees are subject to the same security policies as those used at correctional facilities,” and
See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 321-22; Bell, 441 U.S. at 546-47; Gaston v. Taylor, 946 F.2d 340, 343 9 (4th Cir. 1991) (noting that changes to “prisoners' location, variations of daily routine, changes in conditions of confinement (including administrative segregation), and the denial of privileges . .. are necessarily functions of prison management that must be left to the broad discretion of prison administrators to enable them to manage prisons safely and effectively.”); see also Allison v. Snyder, 332 F.3d 1076, 1079 (7th Cir. 2003) (finding that “placement in a prison, subject to the institution's usual rules of conduct” is not by itself a punishment of a civil detainee); Ballard v. Johns, 17 F.Supp.3d 511, 518 (E.D. N.C. 2014) (“[P]lacement of civil detainees in a prison, subject to the institution's usual rules of conduct does not in and of itself equate to punishment of civil detainees and civil detainees are subject to the same security policies as those used at correctional facilities.”), aff d, 579 Fed.Appx. 214 (4th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (unpublished).
Further, "placement in a prison, subject to the institution's usual rules of conduct" does not alone amount to punishment of a civil detainee. Allison v. Snyder, 332 F.3d 1076, 1079 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing Bell, 441 U.S. 520); see also Ballard v. Johns, 17 F. Supp. 3d 511, 518 (E.D.N.C. 2014) ("[P]lacement of civil detainees in a prison, subject to the institution's usual rules of conduct does not in and of itself equate to punishment of civil detainees and civil detainees are subject to the same security policies as those used at correctional facilities."). The court additionally recognizes that institutional safety and successful treatment of civil detainees are legitimate governmental interests.
Id. The BOP's regulation regarding the inspection of incoming and outgoing mail is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See Altizer v. Deeds, 191 F.3d 540, 547-19 (4th Cir.1999) (opening and inspecting of an inmate's outgoing mail is reasonably related to legitimate penological interest, and is therefore constitutional); see also, e.g., Ballard v. Johns, No. 5:11-CT-3042-H, 2014 WL 1285728, at *7 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 27, 2014) ("Courts have repeatedly upheld institutional rules concerning mail restrictions for civilly committee sexually dangerous persons.") (citation omitted), aff'd, No. 14-6515, 2014 WL 3720190 (4th Cir. July 29, 2014). To the extent any of the mail at issue was legal mail, which may not be opened outside of the presence of the prisoner-addressee, see, e.g., Wolff, 418 at 575-77, to state a claim for a constitutional violation, a plaintiff must show actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 350-54 (1996).
See Altizer v. Deeds, 191 F.3d 540, 547-49 (4th Cir. 1999) (opening and inspecting of an inmate's outgoing mail is reasonably related to legitimate penological interest, and is therefore constitutional); see also Gaines v. Lane, 790 F.2d 1299, 1304 (7th Cir.1986) (upholding against First Amendment challenges regulations that authorize prison officials to inspect incoming or outgoing non-legal mail for contraband); see also, Ray v. Metts, No. 4:04-23048-TLW-TER, 2009 WL 2983008, at *6-9 (D.S.C. Sept.14, 2009) (finding detention center's policy constitutional where all mail to prisoners was opened and inspected for contraband and incoming legal mail was opened in the prisoner's presence), aff'd, 376 F. App'x 355 (4th Cir. 2010). Because the court has determined that the BOP's regulations regarding outgoing and incoming mail are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests, the court finds that plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See, e.g., Ballard v. Johns, No. 5:11-CT-3042-H, 2014 WL 1285728, at *7 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 27, 2014) ("Courts have repeatedly upheld institutional rules concerning mail restrictions for civilly committee sexually dangerous persons.") (citation omitted), aff'd, No. 14-6515, 2014 WL 3720190 (4th Cir. July 29, 2014) c. Telephone Restrictions