Duaane B. Kobe, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Kenneth L. Mcginnis; Dan Bolden, Defendants-appellees, 21 F.3d 428 (6th Cir. 1994)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 21 F.3d 428 (6th Cir. 1994) March 17, 1994

Before: KENNEDY and MILBURN, Circuit Judges, and LIVELY, Senior Circuit Judge.


ORDER

Duaane B. Kobe, a Michigan state prisoner, appeals a district court order awarding summary judgment for defendants in this civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).

Kobe brought suit against two Michigan Department of Corrections officials seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. He alleged that defendants had violated his First Amendment rights and state administrative rules by refusing to allow him to receive certain mail under a prison regulation that forbids the receipt of depictions of homosexual activity. The district court entered summary judgment for the defendants, and this appeal followed.

Upon review, we conclude that defendants were properly granted summary judgment, as there is no genuine issue of material fact and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). The regulation in question does not violate Kobe's First Amendment rights, as it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 414-19 (1989); Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). Nor does the prison policy directive violate state procedural rules. See Hunter v. Koehler, 618 F. Supp. 13, 17 (W.D. Mich. 1984).

Accordingly, the district court's judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 9(b) (3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit, for the reasons set forth in the court's order dated September 24, 1993.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.