Smith v. Lawton Correctional Facility et al

Filing 39

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 09/25/18. Copy of Order mailed to: Bobby Joe Smith, II #448454 LAWTON-LCF 8607 SE Flower Mound Rd Lawton, OK 73501 (wh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
BOBBY JOE SMITH, II,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LAWTON CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV-18-110-C

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff filed the present action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Consistent with the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge Bernard M. Jones. Judge Jones entered a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on
September 4, 2018, recommending judgment be entered as to certain claims and that others be
dismissed without prejudice.
In the R&R, Judge Jones sets out the history of this case. In summary, Plaintiff filed
his action alleging violation of his constitutional rights. According to Plaintiff, Defendants
illegally confiscated three photographs on the basis that they were pornographic. By prior
Orders, several of the originally named Defendants and claims were dismissed. The only
Defendants remaining are Caldwell and Hulderman. The only surviving claims are a claim
for violation of procedural due process rights, a challenge that the policy prohibiting sexually
explicit materials violates the First Amendment, and a claim that prison official illegally
tampered with Plaintiff’s incoming and outgoing mail.
Judge Jones’ analysis of the factual and legal grounds applicable to these claims is
thorough and well-reasoned and no purpose would be served by repeating it here. Following

entry of the R&R, Plaintiff filed a Response to Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 33), a Motion
seeking to Introduce Evidence of Judicial Bias (Dkt. No. 34), and an Objection to the R&R
(Dkt. No. 35). The Court has considered the arguments offered by Plaintiff in each of these
documents and finds none offers any basis to reject Judge Jones’ analysis. The Motion to
Introduce Evidence offers a list of cases which are factually similar to the present case and in
which the various Courts rejected claims similar to Plaintiff’s regarding the alleged
pornographic pictures. Plaintiff argues these cases offer a clear demonstration of judicial bias
against pornography. Plaintiff also offers “evidence” that he watched a television program
entitled “Doctors” which extolled the virtues of masturbation. Neither of these items of
“evidence” are in fact evidence sufficient to demonstrate that Judge Jones’ analysis was
erroneous or incomplete. Further, neither is sufficient to demonstrate that Defendants are not
entitled to summary judgment. As for the Objection to the R&R, it fails to offer any argument
or evidence that was not considered and rejected by Judge Jones in the R&R.
Accordingly, the Court adopts, in its entirety, the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 32). All pending motions are DENIED. A separate judgment
will issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of September 2018.

2