Miranda v. Lumpkin

• Court: District Court, S.D. Texas
• Decided: May 9, 2022
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00271
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Southern District of Texas _ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT May 09, 2022 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

DOMINGO MIRANDA, § □ Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-CV-00271 □

BOBBY LUMPKIN, et al, □□

Defendants. | oo ORDER Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason Libby’s Memorandum and

Recommendation (M&R). (D.E. 23). The M&R recommends that the Court retain Plaintiff's equal protection claims and dismiss all remaining claims. /d. at 8. Plaintiff timely objected to the portion of the M&R recommending his remaining claims be dismissed. (D.E. 26). When a party objects to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, the district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”’).

Here, Plaintiff argues that his remaining claims should not be dismissed because the First Amendment protects his right to watch cultural programs, which facilitate the rehabilitation of inmates. (D.E. 26, p. 1-2). “[A] prison inmate retains those First 1/2

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 (1974). However, unlike printed materials, watching television does not implicate any First Amendment interest sufficient to warrant protection. See Manley v. Fordice, 945 F. Supp. 132, 137 (S.D. Miss. 1996) (“No court has recognized a federal constitutional right to the usage of radio and television by inmates”); Mann v. Smith, 796 F.2d 79 (Sth Cir. 1986) (“Whatever the intrinsic merits of television in comparison with newspapers and magazines, the contents of television are different from what one finds in the printed media”); see also Phila. Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 776 (1986). Because there is no First Amendment interest in Plaintiffs claim(s), it cannot stand and must be dismissed. Therefore, Plaintif? s objection is OVERRULED. Conclusion Having made a de novo disposition of the portions of the M&R to which Plaintiff's objection was directed, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objection and ADOPTS the M&R (D.E. 23) in its entirety. (1) Plaintiffs equal protection claims are RETAINED; and (2) Plaintiff's remaining claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. See (D.E. 22).

SO ORDERED. / | DA S. MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: Corpus Christi, Texas May 2022

2/2 .