Opinion ID: 484321
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: confinement in the sallyport

Text: 44 Appellant's other claim relates to his loss of television privileges and his confinement in the sallyport. Ort alleges that prison officials sentenced him to the sallyport for portions of 58 consecutive days to keep him from watching television. Such primitive conditions of confinement, he argues, constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth amendment. 45 In order to reach the constitutional question here, we first would have to determine that the magistrate's findings of fact, as adopted by the district court, are clearly erroneous. The magistrate found that, contrary to appellant's assertions, Ort was not constantly confined to the sallyport by prison officials. Instead, the magistrate found that appellant was allowed freedom of the camp unless he went into the television areas during those times when prison officials had revoked his television privileges. Only if he was caught in the television areas when he was not authorized to be there was Ort placed in the sallyport. The magistrate further found that during those times when appellant was placed in the sallyport he received food, bathroom privileges, and sufficient clothing. 46 We conclude that the findings of fact with respect to Ort's confinement in the sallyport are not clearly erroneous. Prison officials placed him in the sallyport only when he attempted to circumvent the disciplinary order revoking his television privileges. 4 Thus, this claim is also without merit and will not support a section 1983 action. 47 AFFIRMED.