461 U.S. 238, 248-49, 103 S.Ct. 1741, 1747, 75 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983) as authority. Olim defined the type of discretion which would not create a liberty interest: “If the decision-maker is not ‘required to base its decisions on objective and defined criteria,’ but instead ‘can deny the requested relief for any constitutionally permissible reason or for no reason at all’ the State has not created a constitutionally protected liberty interest.” Olim, 461 U.S. at 249, 103 S.Ct. at 1747 (citations omitted). Based on its reading of Olim, the Adams court concluded that subsection © created a liberty interest. The Adams court reasoned that the word “shall” in subsection © expressly mandated that prison officials permit visitation to “every committed person.” See also Logan, 1989 WL 112726 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, it found subsection ©’s
recognizing that shall will and must are all mandatory terms holding that the term shall constituted mandatory language and quoting cain v lane 857 f2d 1139 1145 7th cir1988 holding that the term shall is mandatory for purposes of statutory construction when the statute is unambiguous holding that shall language in rule 702h conveys a mandatory act holding that a states use of the word shall is mandatory language