Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-cv-02051/USCOURTS-arwd-2_06-cv-02051-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mike Allen
Defendant
Cupp
Defendant
Michael Shane Jones
Plaintiff
Terry Rea
Defendant
Lacy Reed
Defendant

Document Text:

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FORT SMITH DIVISION

MICHAEL SHANE JONES PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-2051

SHERIFF MIKE ALLEN, 

Crawford County Detention Center;

LT. CUPP; CAPTAIN TERRY REA;

and CORPORAL LACY REED D EFENDANTS

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The plaintiff filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He proceeds pro

se and in forma pauperis.

Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in a unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction. The

events at issue in this lawsuit occurred while the plaintiff was incarcerated at the Crawford

County Detention Center. Specifically, plaintiff contends his constitutional rights were violated

in the following ways: (1) he was denied an adequate diet; (2) his food was served in unsanitary

conditions; and (3) he was denied access to newspapers or other media sources containing news

coverage.

Defendants filed a summary judgment motion (Doc. 32). To assist plaintiff in responding

to the motion, a questionnaire was propounded (Doc. 36). 

Plaintiff filed a timely response to the questionnaire (Doc. 37). The summary judgment

motion is before the undersigned for issuance of this report and recommendation. 

Case 2:06-cv-02051-RTD Document 38 Filed 08/21/07 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

Background

Jones was arrested and booked into the Crawford County Detention Center (CCDC) on

March 16, 2006. Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. 37)(hereinafter Resp.) at ¶ 1(A). He was charged

with being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession of drug paraphernalia. Id. at ¶ 1(B).

He was also being held on a parole revocation charge. Id. O n M a r ch 29, 2 0 0 6 , h e w a s

sentenced to a term of six years in the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC). Id. at ¶ 2. He

remained incarcerated at the CCDC until he was transferred to the ADC on May 10, 2006. Id.

at ¶ 18. 

According to defendants, all inmates at the CCDC receive three meals a day. Defendants’

Exhibit (hereinafter Defts’ Ex.) B at ¶ 2. Jones, however, believes the meals were more like

“snacks that fell below federal guidelines on nutrition and calories.” Resp. at ¶ 3. He believes

it would take all three meals served at the CCDC to make one nutritious meal. Id. He also

asserts the amount served was not adequate. Id. 

Although defendants indicate sedentary inmates were served a minimum daily calorie

level of 2300 calories and active detainees a minimum daily calorie level of 2700 calories, defts’

ex. B at ¶¶3-4 & defts. ex. C, Jones asserts all inmates were served the same meals, resp. at ¶ 6.

Mike Allen was the Sheriff of Crawford County during the time Jones was incarcerated

at the CCDC. Resp. at ¶ 7. The policy of the CCDC requires the meals provided to detainees to

contain the recommended dietary allowances and the basic four food groups. Defts’ Ex. B at ¶

5; Defts’ Ex. C. The menus for meals at the CCDC are reviewed at least once a year by a

registered or certified dietician for adequacy. Defts’ Ex. B at ¶ 6; Defts’ Ex. C. 

Case 2:06-cv-02051-RTD Document 38 Filed 08/21/07 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-3-

The CCDC menus were reviewed on April 14, 2006, and found to “meet or exceed the

USDA guidelines for the young adult male population.” Defts’ Ex. G. Jones states he has no

knowledge regarding this. Resp. at ¶ 9(B). He also notes he is not a “young male” but a “grown

male adult.” Id. 

Jones disagrees that the sample menus contained in defendants’ exhibit H are typical of

the meals he received while detained in the CCDC. Resp. at ¶ 9(C). 

Defendants’ Sample Breakfast: Jones’ Sample Breakfast:

Oatmeal 12 oz. (w/butter & sugar) Oatmeal 6 or 7 bits

Bread 2 slices Bread 2 slices

Peanut Butter 2 oz. Peanut Butter 1 scoop

Margarine 2 tsp.

Milk 8 oz. Milk 1 cup or 1 cup of Juice

Juice 8 oz. 

Defendants’ Sample Lunch & Supper: Jones’ Sample Lunch & Supper:

Turkey Bologna 2 oz. 2 paper thin slices of bologna

Bread 2 slices Bread 2 slices

Carrots 8 pieces Carrots-- 3 baby carrots 

Pork & Beans 4 oz.

Peaches 4 oz. Peaches– 3 or 4 small 

Orange Juice 8 oz. or

Tea 8 oz. Tea 1 cup

Mayo & Mustard 1 oz. Mayo– 1 small scoop

Defts’ Ex. H at page 1; Resp. at ¶ 9(C). 

Jones maintains the food was always served cold. Resp. at ¶ 10. He indicates defendants

have no way of keeping the food at the proper temperature once it is on the trays. Id. 

Jones ate his meals in his cell. Resp. at ¶ 12. According to defendants, wherever the food

was served, the area was to be cleaned immediately afterwards and trash removed to an outside

dumpster or garbage collection area. Defts’ Ex. B at ¶ 9; Defts’ Ex. C. Jones states the trays were

removed from the cells but the cells were not cleaned afterwards. Resp. at ¶ 12. Furthermore,

Case 2:06-cv-02051-RTD Document 38 Filed 08/21/07 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-4-

while they ate, he indicates one of the inmates assigned to the cell would have to sit on the toilet.

Id. 

While he was at the CCDC, Jones states he was always hungry and thirsty. Resp. at ¶

9(D). Jones also indicates he had trouble sleeping. Id. He asked the doctor about not being able

to sleep and indicates he was told it was a result of coming off drugs. Id. However, since he has

been at the ADC, Jones states he has been diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes. Id. Jones maintains

he is a diabetic “now due to not getting proper meals at CCDC.” Id. 

In the past, newspapers and magazines were provided to inmates at the CCDC. Defts’

Ex. B at ¶ 10. However, defendants maintain that detainees were flushing these items down the

toilets and causing plumbing problems. Id. For this reason, defendants maintain inmates were

temporarily prohibited from reading newspapers and magazines. Id.

Jones asserts that during his incarceration at the CCDC he was not allowed to have

newspapers or magazines. Resp. at ¶ 13 & ¶ 14. He did have access to other reading material.

Id. at ¶ 14(B). Family members were allowed to bring fiction and non-fiction books to the

inmates and there were about one hundred books in the library. Id. However, there was nothing

having to do with news or the law. Id. If the deputies had time, the inmates were allowed to go

to the library. Id. Inmates were allowed to have three books in their cells. Id. at ¶ 14(C).

Inmates were also allowed to have three pair of underwear, two pencils, one towel, letters they

have received, envelopes, stamps, three pairs of socks, three t-shirts, shampoo, one small bar of

soap, one tube of toothpaste, one toothbrush, one deodorant, one Bible, one sheet, one blanket,

paper, and one cup. Id.

In the past, defendants maintains television privileges were provided to inmates. Defts’

Ex. B at ¶ 11. However, because of problems caused by inmates tapping into the electrical wires

Case 2:06-cv-02051-RTD Document 38 Filed 08/21/07 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-5-

of the television and trying to start fires, defendants assert inmates have been temporarily

prohibited from viewing television. Id. Jones states that during his incarceration at the CCDC,

no television has been available. Resp. at ¶ 15 & ¶ 16(A).

Defendants assert that inmates are allowed to listen to the radio for one hour each day.

Defts’ Ex. B at ¶ 12. Jones, however, asserts that during his first thirty days the radio was

brought in only when everyone wanted to listen to it. Resp. at ¶ 16(B). If one person said no,

the radio was not brought in. Id. When the radio was turned on, it was tuned to either a news

talk show or Rush Limbaugh. Id. at ¶ 16(C). However, Jones states it was so noisy you could

barely hear it. Id. Jones states he had no access to any source of information about local, state,

national, or international news. Id. at ¶ 16(D). 

Jones’ basic human needs for food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and reasonable safety

were met at the CCDC. Resp. at ¶ 17.

Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate if, after viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences

in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio

Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986), the record "show[s] that

there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a

judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). "Once a party moving for summary

judgment has made a sufficient showing, the burden rests with the non-moving party to set forth

specific facts, by affidavit or other evidence, showing that a genuine issue of material fact exists."

National Bank of Commerce v. Dow Chemical Co., 165 F.3d 602, 607 (8th Cir. 1999).

The non-moving party "must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical

doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. "They must show there is sufficient

Case 2:06-cv-02051-RTD Document 38 Filed 08/21/07 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-6-

evidence to support a jury verdict in their favor." National Bank, 165 F.3d at 607 (citing

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986)).

"A case founded on speculation or suspicion is insufficient to survive a motion for summary

judgment." Id. (citing Metge v. Baehler, 762 F.2d 621, 625 (8th Cir. 1985)).

Discussion

Defendants have now moved for summary judgment on Jones’ claims. We will address

each claim in turn. 

Diet

“[W]hen the State takes a person into its custody and holds him there against his will, the

Constitution imposes upon it a corresponding duty to assume some responsibility for his safety

and general well-being.” County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 118 S. Ct. 1708, 1719,

140 L. Ed. 2d 1043 (1998)(citation omitted). The Constitution does not mandate comfortable

prisons, but neither does it permit inhumane ones. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832, 114

S. Ct. 1970, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1994). The Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth

Amendment forbids conditions that involve the “wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain,” or

are “grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337,

347, 101 S. Ct. 2392, 69 L. Ed. 2d 59 (1981). 

“A prisoner alleging an Eighth Amendment violation must prove both an objective and

subjective element. Revels v. Vincenz, 382 F.3d 870, 875 (8th Cir. 2004)(citing Wilson v. Seiter,

501 U.S. 294, 298, 111 S. Ct. 2321, 115 L. Ed. 2d 271 (1991)). “The defendant’s conduct must

objectively rise to the level of a constitutional violation by depriving the plaintiff of the minimal

civilized measure of life’s necessities. The defendants’ conduct must also reflect a subjective

Case 2:06-cv-02051-RTD Document 38 Filed 08/21/07 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-7-

state of mind evincing deliberate indifference to the health or safety of the prisoner” Revels, 382

F.3d at 875 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 

Deliberate indifference is established when the plaintiff shows “the defendant was

substantially aware of but disregarded an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Revels, 382

F.3d at 875. The standards against which a court measures prison conditions are “the evolving

standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.

97, 102, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1976).

The Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment requires

prisoners to be provided with meals nutritionally adequate to maintain health. See e.g., Keenan

v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 1996); Campbell v. Cauthron, 623 F.2d 503, 508 (8th Cir.

1980)(prisoners are guaranteed a reasonably adequate diet). Merely because the food is not

prepared to an inmate's taste or the fact that an inmate would prefer other foods does not

implicate the Constitution. Rather, the Constitution is only violated if the food provided is

inadequate to maintain good health. See e.g., Burgin v. Nix, 899 F.2d 733, 734-35 (8th Cir.

1990)(inmates do not have a right to be served a particular type of food). See also Wilson v.

Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298, 111 S. Ct. 2321, 115 L. Ed. 2d 271 (1991)(the deprivation of food

constitutes cruel and unusual punishment only if it denies a prisoner the minimal civilized

measure of life's necessities).

In this case, Jones contends the diet he received was inadequate. Specifically, he

maintains he did not receive a sufficient amount of food and/or he did not receive a nutritionally

adequate diet. As a result of the diet he received, he asserts he was always hungry and thirsty.

Resp. at ¶ 9(D). He also contends that he was diagnosed with diabetes in June of 2006. Id. He

Case 2:06-cv-02051-RTD Document 38 Filed 08/21/07 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-8-

maintains this diagnosis was the result of not getting proper meals during his incarceration at the

CCDC. Id.

Defendants have provided information establishing the menus they serve are reviewed

at least once a year by a registered or certified dietician for adequacy. Moreover, they maintain

the meals meet the recommended dietary allowance, provide a minimum daily calorie level of

2300 calories for sedentary detainees and 2700 calories for active detainees, and include food

from the basic four food groups. 

The menus of the CCDC were reviewed for nutritional adequacy on April 14, 2006. See

Defts’ Ex. G. Although Jones contends the menus were not always followed, when he was asked

whether his basic human needs for food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and reasonable safety

were met at the CCDC he responded that they were. Resp. at ¶ 17. 

When he was asked if he had suffered any injury as a result of the diet he received, he

responded that he was hungry and thirsty a lot and urinating frequently. Id. at ¶ 9(D). He also

contends the diet he received caused his Type 2 diabetes. Id. According to the National Diabetes

I n f o rm a ti o n Cl e a ri n g h o u s e , d i a b e t e s is a d is o r d e r o f m e t a b o l is m .

http://www.diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/overview#what (accessed August 20, 2007). “In

people with diabetes, the pancreas either produces little or no insulin, or the cells do not respond

appropriately to the insulin that is produced.” Id. Symptoms of Type 2 diabetes include frequent

urination, increased thirst and hunger. Id. 

In short, there is nothing to indicate any of the alleged “injuries” Jones identified were

attributable to the diet he received at the CCDC rather than to the medical condition he was

diagnosed with a short time after he left the CCDC. We note Jones was incarcerated at the

Case 2:06-cv-02051-RTD Document 38 Filed 08/21/07 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-9-

CCDC from March 29, 2006, until May 10, 2006, and diagnosed with diabetes in June of 2006.

Resp. at ¶ 2, ¶ 18 & ¶ 9(D). 

While at the CCDC, Jones does not maintain he was lost weight or was unable to go

about his activities of daily living because the alleged inadequacies in the diet. At this stage,

Jones must do more than just make conclusory allegations. See e.g., Beck v. Skon, 253 F.3d 330,

333 (8th Cir. 2001)(“Like any other civil litigant [a pro se litigant is] required to respond to

defendants’ motion with specific factual support for his claims to avoid summary judgment”).

We find no genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether Jones was provided with an

adequate diet. 

Unsanitary Conditions

Jones also asserts that the meals were served in unsanitary conditions. Resp. at ¶ 12.

Specifically, he asserts he and two other inmates were served their meals in their cell. Id. He

maintains one of the inmates had to sit on the toilet to eat. Id. Jones does not indicate why one

of the inmates had to sit on the toilet as opposed to somewhere else in the cell. 

The record does not support a finding that the food was prepared or served in unsanitary

conditions. Jones has presented no evidence that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to

the conditions in his cell or the fact that he sometimes, apparently, had to eat while sitting on his

toilet. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 111 S. Ct. 2321, 2327, 115 L. Ed. 2d 271 (1991). 

Access to Newspapers and/or Other News Media

Jones maintains he never had access to newspapers, magazines, or television and did not

have access to any source of information about local, state, national or international news. Resp.

at ¶ 14(A), ¶ 15, ¶ 16(D). With respect to the radio, he states if anyone objected to the radio

being played, it was not brought in. Id. at ¶ 16(C). If the radio was played, Jones states it was

Case 2:06-cv-02051-RTD Document 38 Filed 08/21/07 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-10-

tuned to a station playing a news talk show or Rush Limbaugh and it was so noisy in the pod you

could barely hear it. Id. at ¶ 16(C). 

Defendants acknowledge detainees have a right to receive news from outside sources

while they are incarcerated. However, they maintain they have been forced because of legitimate

penological interests to temporarily prohibit newspapers, magazines, and television. Instead,

they maintain detainees are given access to news via the radio for one hour each day. Defendants

assert substantial deference is due to their professional judgment as detention center

administrators. 

“Prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the

Constitution.” Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407, 109 S. Ct. 1874, 104 L. Ed. 2d 459

(1989). “[A] prison inmate retains those First Amendment rights that are not inconsistent with

his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system.”

Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822, 94 S. Ct. 2800, 41 L. Ed. 2d 495 (1972). Among other

things, the “Constitution protects the rights to receive information and ideas.” Kleindienst v.

Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 762, 92 S. Ct. 2576, 33 L. Ed. 2d 683 (1972). 

Prison policies impinging on inmates' First Amendment rights are valid only if they are

reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-90, 107

S. Ct. 2254, 96 L. Ed. 2d 64 (1987); Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 784 (8th Cir. 1999). 

“[E]ven though this court engages in a deferential review of the administrative decisions of

prison authorities, the traditional deference does not mean that courts have abdicated their duty

to protect those constitutional rights that a prisoner retains.” Fortner v. Thomas, 983 F.2d 1024,

1029 (11th Cir. 1993).

Case 2:06-cv-02051-RTD Document 38 Filed 08/21/07 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-11-

In determining whether a regulation or restriction is reasonable, the court employs a

balancing test considering: (1) whether a rational connection exists between the regulation and

a neutral, legitimate government interest; (2) whether alternative means exist for inmates to

exercise the constitutional right at issue; (3) what impact the accommodation of the right would

have on inmates, prison personnel, and allocation of prison resources; and (4) whether obvious,

easy alternatives exist. See Beard v. Banks, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S. Ct. 2572, 2575, 165 L. Ed. 2d

697 (2006)(applying Turner and upholding a Pennsylvania prison policy denying newspapers,

magazines and photographs to a group of “specifically dangerous and recalcitrant inmates.”). 

It has been held that “[t]here is no basis for total restrictions on prisoners’ access to the

news in view of their clear First Amendment rights.” United States ex rel. Manicone v. Corso,

365 F. Supp. 576, 577 (E.D. N.Y. 1973). Furthermore, a number of courts have held that

prisoners have a right to receive and read newspapers. See e.g, Sizemore v. Williford, 829 F.2d

608, 610 (7th Cir. 1987) (absent restrictions based on legitimate goals of confinement, prison

inmates retain First Amendment right to receive and read newspapers); Mann v. Smith, 796 F.2d

79, 82-83 (5th Cir. 1986)(county jail’s policy of banning newspapers and magazines violated a

pretrial detainee’s First Amendment rights where the state failed to show the ban served a

legitimate government objective); Wilkinson v. Skinner, 462 F.2d 670, 673 n. 5 (2nd Cir.

1972)(“refusal to deliver a newspaper would ordinarily be interference with appellant’s first

amendment rights”); Rowland v. Jones, 452 F.2d 1005 (8th Cir. 1971)(prison authorities' denial

of access to newspaper "Muhammad Speaks" constituted prior restraint in violation of First

Amendment); Spellman v. Hopper, 95 F. Supp. 2d 1267 (M.D. Ala. 1999)(absolute prohibition

Case 2:06-cv-02051-RTD Document 38 Filed 08/21/07 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-12-

on subscription magazines and newspapers applied to administrative segregation inmates in

Alabama is not reasonably related to legitimate penological goals).

Here, defendants argue the ban on newspapers and magazines is rationally related to

legitimate concerns because these materials were in the past used to cause plumbing problems

when inmates flushed the items down the toilets. Defts’ Ex. B at ¶ 10. With respect to

televisions, defendants argue inmates tapped into the electrical wires and tried to start fires with

them. Id. at ¶ 11.

According to Jones, inmates are permitted to have access to Bibles, books, towels, letters,

envelopes, stamps, clothing, paper, sheets, blankets and numerous other materials. Resp. at ¶

14(C). These items would appear to present the same security and safety concerns. In fact,

“[c]ourts have recognized the tenuousness of the connection between [a prohibition on magazines

and newspapers] and fire prevention.” Spellman, 95 F. Supp. 2d at 1273. See also Kincaid v.

Rusk, 670 F.2d 737, 744 (7th Cir. 1982)(“[T]he total ban on newspapers was arbitrary and

unjustifiable when the two hazards allegedly caused by the possession of newspapers--fire

damage and jammed plumbing--could as well be caused by the sort of reading material detainees

were permitted to have.”); Payne v. Whitmore, 325 F. Supp. 1191, 1193 (N.D. Cal. 1971)(“Jail

cells are already filled with an abundance of materials quite suitable for fire starting . . . ; yet no

one suggests that cells ought to be stripped of bedding, clothing, toilet paper, writing materials,

and so on.”). Here, defendants have submitted no supporting evidence concerning the frequency

of fires or the effect banning newspapers had on the frequency of fires. 

Courts have also recognized the tenuousness of the connection between a prohibition on

magazines and newspapers and the prevention of floods or clogged plumbing. See e.g., Mann

Case 2:06-cv-02051-RTD Document 38 Filed 08/21/07 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-13-

v. Smith, 796 F.2d 79, 82 (5th Cir. 1986)(“inmates had sheets, blankets, pillows and clothing that

could be used to interfere with the plumbing); Kincaid, 670 F.2d at 744 (“other paper and

nonpaper material (e.g., shoes) could just as easily jam toilets”); Spellman, 95 F. Supp. 2d at

1276 (the court would have difficulty finding a rational relationship between the prohibition on

subscription magazines and newspapers and fire prevention and flood prevention); Parnell v.

Waldrep, 511 F. Supp. 764, 767 (W.D. N.C. 1981)(“no incidents of plugging toilets . . .

occurred” after inmates were allowed to receive newspapers and magazines); Payne, 325 F.

Supp. at 1193 (“Jail cells are already filled with an abundance of materials quite suitable for . .

. drain clogging; yet no one suggests that cells ought to be stripped of bedding, clothing, toilet

paper, writing materials, and so on.”). 

We believe there are genuine issues of material fact that preclude summary judgment in

the defendants’ favor on this claim. It is clear Jones was denied access to newspapers and

magazines. While defendants have asserted a legitimate penological reason for denying inmates

access to these materials, they allow inmates access to other materials that create the same

hazards they seek to avoid by the ban. There is no explanation for this in the record. 

Additionally, although Jones may have had some access to the radio, there are questions

as to the frequency of this access, the quality of the access, and whether he even had access to

state, local, national, and world news. Furthermore, there is some question as to whether the

radio is considered a satisfactory alternative for newspapers and magazines. See e.g., Jacklovich

v. Simmons, 392 F.3d 420, 431 (10th Cir. 2004)(“Concerning the inmates’ other alternative

means to exercise their First Amendment rights, we agree that the ability to listen to the radio or

Case 2:06-cv-02051-RTD Document 38 Filed 08/21/07 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-14-

watch television is not an adequate substitute for reading newspapers and magazines.”)(citations

omitted).

Conclusion

For the reasons stated, I recommend that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment

(Doc. 32) be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, I recommend the motion be granted

with respect to plaintiff’s claims that he was provided an inadequate diet and his claim that his

meals were served in an unsanitary environment. I further recommend that the motion be denied

with respect to plaintiff’s claim that his First Amendment rights were violated when he was

denied access to newspapers or other media sources containing news coverage.

The parties have ten days from receipt of the report and recommendation in which

to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are

reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the

district court.

DATED this 21st day of August 2007.

/s/ J. Marschewski 

HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02051-RTD Document 38 Filed 08/21/07 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: <pageID>