Larkin v. Marshall, (1st Cir. 1998)
Linked as:
Text
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 98-1267
MICHAEL L. LARKIN,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
JOHN J. MARSHALL, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Robert E. Keeton, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge, Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
Michael L. Larkin on brief pro se.
Nancy Ankers White, Special Assistant Attorney General and Robert Palumbo, Counsel on brief for appellees.
November 18, 1998 Per Curiam. After carefully reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we affirm the judgment below on the well reasoned decision of the district court. Prison officials may adopt restrictive policies needed to preserve security and discipline. Wood v. Clemons, 89 F.3d 922, 928 (1st Cir. 1996).
Limiting access to facilities during the regularly-scheduled periods at issue or during occasional emergencies is not cruel and unusual punishment. According to the record, the disciplinary actions were adequately justified by non- retaliatory considerations. Gomes v. Fair, 738 F.2d 517 (1stCir. 1984).
Affirmed. Loc. R. 27.1.
Sponsored links
This document cites
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit - Sharon Wood Et Al., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. James R. Clemons Et Al., Defendants, Appellees., 89 F.3d 922 (1st Cir. 1996)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit - Justin Gomes, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. Michael v. Fair, Et Al., Defendants, Appellants., 738 F.2d 517 (1st Cir. 1984)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
