Gasaway v. Winn

Filing 15

ORDER adopting 12 Report and Recommendation. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner Edmond Gasaway's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is denied. This Court shall adopt the Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle's Report and Recommendation as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court and the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and close the case. Signed by Chief Judge Raner C Collins on 12/15/2016. (SIB)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Edmon Gasaway,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-15-00248-TUC-RCC

JT Shartle,

13

Respondent.

14
15

Pending before the Court are Petitioner Edmond Gasaway’s Petition for Writ of

16

Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) and Magistrate Judge Charles R.

17

Pyle’s Report and Recommendation (R & R) (Doc. 12). On September 19, 2016,

18

Petitioner filed an objection to the R & R. Doc. 13. On October 4, 2016, Respondent filed

19

a response. For the foregoing reasons, the Court shall overrule Petitioner’s objections,

20

accept and adopt Magistrate Judge Pyle’s R & R as the findings of fact and conclusions

21

of law of this Court and deny Petitioner’s writ.

22

I. Background

23

The factual and procedural background in this case is thoroughly detailed in Magistrate

24

Judge Pyle’s R & R. The Court fully incorporates the “Background” section of the R & R

25

into this Order.

26

II. Discussion

27

The duties of the district court in connection with a R & R are set forth in Rule 72

28

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may

1

“accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or

2

return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28

3

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

4

Where the parties object to an R & R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a

5

de novo determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is made.” 28

6

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).

7

Here, Petitioner makes the same arguments that he claimed in his petition.

8

Specifically, Petitioner alleges that his due process rights were violated “before he ever

9

entered a [Disciplinary Hearing]” because the investigating officer did not conduct a

10

“reasonable investigation.” Doc. 13. Petitioner claims that the investigating officer did

11

not determine which locker held the weapon. However, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S.

12

539, 565-66 (1974) does not require specific investigation procedures and only requires

13

“some evidence” to support the disciplinary decision. Because the weapon was found in

14

Petitioner’s area of responsibility, there is some evidence to support the disciplinary

15

hearing outcome. Thus, Petitioner’s objections to Magistrate Judge Pyle’s R&R are

16

overruled and the petition is denied.

17

…

18

…

19

…

20

…

21

…

22

…

23

…

24

…

25

…

26

…

27

…

28

…

-2-

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner Edmond Gasaway’s Petition for Writ

3

of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is denied.

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court shall adopt the Magistrate Judge

5

Charles R. Pyle’s Report and Recommendation as the findings of fact and conclusions of

6

law of this Court.

7
8
9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and
close the case.
Dated this 15th day of December, 2016.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-