Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

White v. Keller

588 F.2d 913

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1978-12-18
Topic
litigation

How later courts describe this case

  • prison regulations on visitation procedures “may confer upon individuals the right to the benefit of those procedures and the failure to afford or abide by them is a denial of due process”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed White v. Keller. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
10 opinions
WHITE v. KELLER,588 F.2d 913(4th Cir. 1978)
WESLEY WHITE, MAZOLA WHITE, WILLIAM PRICE, WILHELEMENA PRICE, CLARENCE
WHITE, AND WENDELL A. HALL, APPELLANTS,
AND
GEORGE J. GRUBER, JR., BEATRICE F. GRUBER, AND THOMAS L. GRUBER, PLAINTIFFS,
v. GERALD A. KELLER, SUPERINTENDENT, MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, APPELLEE.
No. 77-2400.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued November 15, 1978.
Decided December 18, 1978.
Mary S. Elcano, Legal Aid Bureau, Inc., Baltimore, Md. (Richard G. Fishman, Legal Aid Bureau, Inc., Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellants.

Henry J. Frankel, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
Before WINTER and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges, and HOFFMAN,fn*Senior District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Plaintiffs instituted a class action under42 U.S.C. § 1983for injunctive reliefPage 914and damages alleging the invalidity of suspension of a prisoner's future visiting rights for a limited period of time when he is found in possession of contraband (drugs, money or other prohibited articles) immediately following a visit. It was contended that prisoners and members of their family and designated friends have a first amendment right of visitation which was unduly limited since punishment for smuggling and receiving contraband and prevention of future smuggling could be accomplished by less drastic means. Additionally, those of the plaintiffs who wish to visit prisoners assert that they have a right to a hearing which was denied them before their rights of visitation may be restricted.

[2] In a thorough and carefully considered opinion, the district court granted summary judgment to defendant, the superintendent of the correctional institution. We think its decision correct and we affirm on its memorandum opinion.

[3]AFFIRMED.
  1. Walter E. Hoffman, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation. ↩