Gasaway v. Winn

Filing 33

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations 31 . Petitioner Gasaway's petition is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. Signed by Chief Judge Raner C Collins on 7/29/2016. (SIB)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Edmond Gasaway,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-13-00270-TUC-RCC

Louis W Winn, Jr.,

13

Respondent.

14
15

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) prepared by

16

Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle. Doc. 14. Magistrate Judge Pyle recommends that the

17

Court denies Petitioner Edmond Gasaway’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

18

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Gasaway has filed an objection. For the foregoing reasons, the Court

19

shall adopt the R & R.

20

The duties of the district court, when reviewing a R & R of a Magistrate Judge, are

21

set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

22

The district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

23

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. §

24

636(b)(1). When the parties object to a R & R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall

25

make a de novo determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is

26

made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). However, in the

27

absence of a timely objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear

28

error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed.R.Civ.P.

1

72(b), Advisory Committee Notes (1983); see also United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328

2

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).

3

The factual background in this case is thoroughly detailed in Magistrate Judge

4

Pyle’s R & R. This Court fully incorporates by reference the Background and Discussion

5

sections of the R & R into this Order.

6

In his objections to the R & R, Gasaway reargues the same contentions that

7

Magistrate Judge Pyle rightfully found to be unconvincing. Gasaway also argues that the

8

“some evidence” standard does not apply to him because “it is undisputable that Lt.

9

Halladay did not return documents” to him. That is incorrect. Due process only requires

10

that disciplinary findings be supported by “some evidence” in the record. Superintendent,

11

Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454-55. This standard applies to all

12

disciplinary findings, including the findings at issue here. Because, as Magistrate Judge

13

Pyle notes, there is some evidence to support the disciplinary findings, Gasaway’s

14

petition must be denied.

15

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Pyle’s Report and

16
17

Recommendation is adopted. Petitioner Gasaway’s petition is denied. Doc. 14.

18
19
20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to close the
case.
Dated this 29th day of July, 2016.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-