Case ID: f-appx_356/html/0920-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Brian Keith LOEHR, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. State of NEVADA; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 06-15633.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
    Brian Keith Loehr, Lovelock, NV, pro se.
    Edward L. Oueilhe, Esq., Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Brian Keith Loehr, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by defendants’ restrictions on his receipt of Hustler magazine. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Bahramp-our v. Lampert, 356 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Loehr’s First Amendment claim because Loehr failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that regulations prohibiting sexually explicit material were not reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See Mauro v. Ar-paio, 188 F.3d 1054, 1058-63 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc) (upholding a ban on sexually explicit materials depicting frontal nudity).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Loehr’s procedural due process claim because Loehr failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he was given notice of the withholding and the right to appeal to a prison official other than the one who made the initial decision to withhold the magazine. See Krug v. Lutz, 329 F.3d 692, 696-98 (9th Cir.2003).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.