Larkin v. Marshall
This text of Larkin v. Marshall (Larkin v. Marshall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT] United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit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-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Larkin v. Marshall, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larkin-v-marshall-ca1-1998.