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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?