Rice v. Rathman et al

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND ACCEPTING RECOMMENDATIONS the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Robert B Propst on 10/21/13. (ASL)

FILED
2013 Oct-21 PM 02:10
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
NATHANIEL D. RICE,
Petitioner,
v
WARDEN JOHN RATHMAN, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11-cv-1136-RBP-MHH

ORDER
In his § 2241 habeas petition, Mr. Rice asks the Court to restore good time
credits that he lost following a prison disciplinary proceeding. Mr. Rice contends
that the Bureau of Prisons violated his due process rights with respect to the
disciplinary hearing by refusing his request to present exculpatory evidence during
the hearing; failing to provide an impartial hearing officer for the disciplinary
hearing; and delaying the disciplinary process. On January 18, 2013, the
magistrate judge filed a report in which she recommended that the Court deny Mr.
Rice’s petition. (Doc. 11). On March 25, 2013, Mr. Rice filed objections to the
magistrate’s report and recommendation. (Doc. 14).
Mr. Rice’s objections repeat much of what he stated in his petition and in
his briefing to the Court. He maintains that the DHO was unwilling to consider
important exculpatory evidence, such as a videotape of the incident that gave rise

to the disciplinary proceeding and the testimony of Lt. Manning who purportedly
reviewed the videotape. Even if Mr. Rice is correct, the Court cannot afford Mr.
Rice the relief that he seeks because there is “some evidence” to support the
outcome of the disciplinary hearing, and that is enough in this circuit. O’Bryant v.
Finch, 637 F. 3d 1207, 1214 (11th Cir. 2011); Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v.
Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985).
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo the Report and
Recommendation of the magistrate judge and the objections of the petitioner, the
Court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is
due to be and is hereby ADOPTED and her recommendation is ACCEPTED.
Accordingly, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. The Clerk of
Court is directed to close this file and to mail a copy of this Order to the Petitioner.
Done, this the 21st day of October, 2013.

ROBERT B. PROPST
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE