Brian Keith Loehr v. State of Nevada;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIAN KEITH LOEHR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NEVADA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 06-15633
D.C. No. CV-04-00409-
ECR/RAM
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Edward C. Reed, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Brian Keith Loehr, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment for defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JK/Research 06-15633 2
that his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by defendants’
restrictions on his receipt of Hustler magazine. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Bahrampour v. Lampert, 356 F.3d 969, 973
(9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Loehr’s First
Amendment claim because Loehr failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact
that regulations prohibiting sexually explicit material were not reasonably related
to legitimate penological interests. See Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054, 1058-63
(9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (upholding a ban on sexually explicit materials depicting
frontal nudity).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Loehr’s
procedural due process claim because Loehr failed to raise a genuine issue of
material fact as to whether he was given notice of the withholding and the right to
appeal to a prison official other than the one who made the initial decision to
withhold the magazine. See Krug v. Lutz, 329 F.3d 692, 696-98 (9th Cir. 2003).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --