Gasaway v. Winn
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Louis W Winn, Jr.,
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) prepared by
Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle. Doc. 14. Magistrate Judge Pyle recommends that the
Court denies Petitioner Edmond Gasaway’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Gasaway has filed an objection. For the foregoing reasons, the Court
shall adopt the R & R.
The duties of the district court, when reviewing a R & R of a Magistrate Judge, are
set forth in Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). When the parties object to a R & R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall
make a de novo determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is
made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). However, in the
absence of a timely objection, the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear
error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b), Advisory Committee Notes (1983); see also United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328
F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).
The factual background in this case is thoroughly detailed in Magistrate Judge
Pyle’s R & R. This Court fully incorporates by reference the Background and Discussion
sections of the R & R into this Order.
In his objections to the R & R, Gasaway reargues the same contentions that
Magistrate Judge Pyle rightfully found to be unconvincing. Gasaway also argues that the
“some evidence” standard does not apply to him because “it is undisputable that Lt.
Halladay did not return documents” to him. That is incorrect. Due process only requires
that disciplinary findings be supported by “some evidence” in the record. Superintendent,
Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454-55. This standard applies to all
disciplinary findings, including the findings at issue here. Because, as Magistrate Judge
Pyle notes, there is some evidence to support the disciplinary findings, Gasaway’s
petition must be denied.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Pyle’s Report and
Recommendation is adopted. Petitioner Gasaway’s petition is denied. Doc. 14.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to close the
Dated this 29th day of July, 2016.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?