Case Name: Michelle BAZZETTA, Stacy Barker, Toni Bunton, Debra King, Shante Allen, Adrienne Branaugh, Alesia Butler, Tamara Prude, Susan Fair, Valerie Bunton, and Arturo Bunton, through his next friend Valerie Bunton, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Kenneth MCGINNIS, Director of Michigan Department of Corrections and Michigan Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-28
Citations: 73 F. App'x 842
Docket Number: No. 01-1635
Parties: Michelle BAZZETTA, Stacy Barker, Toni Bunton, Debra King, Shante Allen, Adrienne Branaugh, Alesia Butler, Tamara Prude, Susan Fair, Valerie Bunton, and Arturo Bunton, through his next friend Valerie Bunton, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Kenneth MCGINNIS, Director of Michigan Department of Corrections and Michigan Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before MERRITT, CLAY and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 73
Pages: 842–843

Head Matter:
Michelle BAZZETTA, Stacy Barker, Toni Bunton, Debra King, Shante Allen, Adrienne Branaugh, Alesia Butler, Tamara Prude, Susan Fair, Valerie Bunton, and Arturo Bunton, through his next friend Valerie Bunton, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Kenneth MCGINNIS, Director of Michigan Department of Corrections and Michigan Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 01-1635.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Aug. 28, 2003.
Michael J. Barnhart, Detroit, MI, Deborah A. LaBelle, Law Offices of Deborah LaBelle, Patricia A. Streeter, Ann Arbor, MI, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Lisa C. Ward, Asst. Attorney Gen., for Defendants-Appellants.
Before MERRITT, CLAY and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER VACATING and REMANDING
In the above-styled case the Supreme Court of the United States on June 16, 2003, reversed the decision of this Court holding that certain Michigan prison regulations were invalid on their face, but also reserving any argument that "an individual claim based on indefinite withdrawal of visitation or denial of procedural safeguards" would pass muster under the First and Eighth Amendments as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment. In light of the Supreme Court's holding in this case, the previous judgment of this Court is vacated and the case remanded to the District Court for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court opinion.
Accordingly, it is so ORDERED.