Summary
upholding a policy limiting visitation by fiancée that had the effect, as in the instant case, of limiting the prisoner's ability to marry his fiancée because of a visitor-list requirement for marriage
Summary of this case from Dixon v. CainOpinion
CASE NO. C14-5474 BHS
03-20-2015
CURTIS B. FISHER, Plaintiff, v. BERNIE WARNER, DAN J. PACHOLKE, MIKE OBENLAND, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the Honorable Karen L. Strombom, United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 24), and Plaintiff Curtis Fisher's ("Fisher") objections to the R&R (Dkt. 25).
On February 2, 2015, Judge Strombom issued the R&R recommending that the Court deny Fisher's motion for summary judgment and grant Defendants Mike Obenland, Dan Pacholke, and Bernie Warner's ("Defendants") motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 24. On February 20, 2015, Fisher filed objections. Dkt. 25.
The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
In this case, Fisher objects to Judge Strombom's R&R with the same arguments that were presented to and rejected by Judge Strombom. The issue of law in this case is whether it is a constitutional violation to preclude a visitor from being on two inmates' approved visitors lists when that visitor is not an immediate family member of both inmates. Fisher, and his fiancée Julia Scott, made numerous requests for an exception to the prison's rule that Ms. Scott is barred from being on both Fisher's approved visitors list and Ms. Scott's son's approved visitors list. Prison officials denied every request. Fisher eventually filed this civil rights action. Judge Strombom thoroughly addressed each of Fisher's constitutional claims and concluded that neither the prison's rule nor the prison officials' denials of Fisher's requests for an exception violated any constitutional right. Moreover, Fisher has failed to offer any reasonable alternatives that would result in only a de minimus burden on the institution. The Court finds no reason to add any further analysis to Judge Strombom's R&R. Therefore, the Court having considered the R&R, Fisher's objections, and the remaining record, does hereby find and order as follows:
(1) The R&R is ADOPTED;
(2) Fisher's motion for summary judgment is DENIED;
(3) Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED;
(4) Fisher's in forma pauperis status is REVOKED for appeal; and
(5) This action is DISMISSED.
Dated this 20th day of March, 2015.
/s/_________
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge