Gravley v. Berkibile

Filing 32

ORDER Adopting and Affirming 29 Report and Recommendations by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 2/6/14. 30 Objection is overruled, 5 Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is denied, and this case is dismissed in its entirety. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02379-CMA-MEH
DWAUNE GRAVELY,
Applicant,
v.
HON. D. BERKIBILE, Warden,
Respondent.

ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING JANUARY 13, 2014
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the January 13, 2014 Recommendation
by United States Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty that Applicant Dwaune Gravely’s
“[Amended] Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241”
be denied. (Doc. # 29.) The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). On January 24, 2014, Mr. Gravely
filed an objection to the Recommendation (Doc. # 30), to which Berkibile responded on
February 4, 2014 (Doc. # 31).
“When a magistrate judge issues a recommendation on a dispositive matter,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) requires that the district judge “determine de novo any part
of the magistrate judge’s [recommended] disposition that has been properly objected
to.” In conducting its review, “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the

recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.” Id.
In the instant case, Gravely raises several improper objections that merely
reiterate arguments that were before Magistrate Judge Hegarty at the time his
Recommendation issued. With regard to Gravely’s argument that Judge Hegarty
misapplied Craft v. Jones 1 in determining his disciplinary hearing and incident report
claims are moot, the Court perceives no error. Gravely contends that Magistrate Judge
Hegarty erred when he relied on Craft because the inmate in that case did not raise a
constitutional claim, whereas Mr. Gravely did. 2 Craft stands for the broader principle
that where an inmate challenges disciplinary proceedings that prison officials have since
vacated and intend to re-adjudicate, such claims are moot. 473 F. App’x at 845-46.
Accordingly, Gravely’s objections are unavailing and the Court agrees with Magistrate
Judge Hegarty’s well-reasoned analysis.
The Court has conducted a de novo review of this matter, including reviewing
all relevant pleadings, the Recommendation, Gravely’s objection, and Berkebile’s
response. Based on this de novo review, the Court concludes that Judge Hegarty’s
Recommendation is correct and is not called into question by Gravely’s objection.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. # 30) is
OVERRULED. It is

1

473 F. App’x 843 (10th Cir. 2012).

2

The Court notes that the applicant in Craft raised an Eighth Amendment claim. Id. at 845.

2

FURTHER ORDERED that the Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Michael E. Hegarty (Doc. # 29) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an order of this
Court. Pursuant to the Recommendation. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that “[Amended] Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241” (Doc. # 5) is DENIED. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED in its entirety.
DATED: February 6, 2014
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

3