Hagen

MEMORANDUM **

Kamal Abdul-Jabbaar 1 and Lon Moskowitz (together “Appellants”) appeal the district court’s denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Appellants argue that the district court, in adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, did not apply the correct qualified immunity test as announced in Saucier v. Katz. 2 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . 3 We affirm.

Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recite them here. In adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, which was issued before Katz, the district court could not have applied the newly refined test. However, the error in this case was harmless; Appellants were not entitled to qualified immunity even under Katz because they could not have believed it was reasonable for them to deny Thomas Hagen the right to attend religious services.

I. The Katz Two-Prong Test

In Katz, the Supreme Court announced a refined, two-part, qualified immunity *304 test. 4 A court faced with a qualified immunity claim must first ask: “Taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated…