Prow v. Roy et al

Filing 158

ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation 105 is ADOPTED; and 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction 43 is DENIED. (Written Opinion). Signed by The Hon. Paul A. Magnuson on 03/06/2017. (LLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Matthew Prow,

Case No. 15-cv-3857 (PAM/SER)
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

Tom Roy, John King,
Sandra O’Hara, Steve Hammer,
Mary McComb, Carol Kripner,
Regina Stepney, Lieutenant Lindell,
and Sergeant Hillyard,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of
United States Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau dated December 9, 2016. In the R&R,
Magistrate Judge Rau recommends denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order and Preliminary Injunction. After a delay in receiving a copy of the R&R, Plaintiff
filed a timely objection. According to statute, the Court must conduct a de novo review
of any portion of the R&R to which specific objections are made.

28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); D. Minn. L.R. 72.2(b). Based on that de novo
review, the Court adopts the R&R.
Plaintiff’s only objection to the R&R is that he be allowed a one-time purchase of
prohibited art supplies “for the purpose of preparing his case for the Court.” (Pl.’s Obj.
(Docket No. 141) at 2.) According to Plaintiff, the one-time purchase does not concern
free expression as Magistrate Judge Rau analyzed, but rather it concerns his access to the
Court because he would use the purchased supplies to produce trial exhibits. (Id.) But

the Court can determine whether Plaintiff’s rights have been violated without these
exhibits. His access to the Court will remain adequate, effective, and meaningful without
such exhibits. Moreover, as Magistrate Judge Rau explained, “it would be inappropriate
for the Court to stand in the shoes of the prison administrators and overturn particular
hobby craft determinations on a case-by-case basis because that would unnecessarily
infringe on the deference and discretion the government is afforded in the administration
of the day-to-day operation of prison facilities.”

(R&R (Docket No. 105) at 6.)

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

The R&R (Docket No. 105) is ADOPTED; and

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
Injunction (Docket No. 43) is DENIED.

Dated: March 6, 2017

s/ Paul A. Magnuson
Paul A. Magnuson
United States District Court Judge

2