Court Opinion

ID: 2965610
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:42:37.822139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:45.927614
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]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.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                               -2-