Augare v. True et al

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. 1. Petitioner Delyle Augare's objections (Doc. No. 12 ) to Magistrate Judge Katherine Menendez's June 26, 2017 Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED.2. Magistrate Judge Katherine Menendez's June 26, 2017 Report andRecommendation (Doc. No. 11 ) is ADOPTED. 3. Petitioner Delyle Augare's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. No. 1 ) is DENIED. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Donovan W. Frank on 8/22/2017. (BJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Delyle Augare,

Civil No. 16-4126 (DWF/KMM)
Petitioner,

v.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

Warden B. True and
Federal Bureau of Prisons,
Respondents.

This matter is before the Court upon Petitioner Delyle Augare’s objections (Doc.
No. 12) to Magistrate Judge Katherine Menendez’s June 26, 2017 Report and
Recommendation (Doc. No. 11) insofar as it recommends that Petitioner’s Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be denied and that this action be
dismissed. Respondents filed a response to Petitioner’s objections on July 24, 2017.
(Doc. No. 14.)
The factual background for the above-entitled matter is clearly and precisely set
forth in the Report and Recommendation and is incorporated by reference for purposes of
Petitioner’s objections. In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge
explained that the record shows that in a prison disciplinary proceeding, the Bureau of
Prisons afforded Petitioner sufficient due process, noting that he received advance notice
of the disciplinary charges against him, an opportunity to call witnesses and present
evidence in his defense, and a written statement of the evidence relied on and the reasons
for the loss of forty-one days of conduct time, among other sanctions. In addition, the

Magistrate Judge explained that the record shows sufficient evidence supporting the
Disciplinary Hearing Officer’s decision to discipline Petitioner. Petitioner objects and
seeks restoration of the good-conduct time credits which he lost after the Disciplinary
Hearing Officer determined that Petitioner violated a relevant code for possessing the cell
phone found in the common area of a cell that he shared with other inmates.
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, including a review of the
arguments and submissions of counsel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Rule 72.2(b). The Court finds no reason that would warrant a departure from the
Magistrate Judge’s thorough and well-reasoned recommendation to dismiss with
prejudice Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Based upon the de novo review of the record and all of the arguments and submissions of
the parties and the Court being otherwise duly advised in the premises, the Court hereby
enters the following:
ORDER
1.

Petitioner Delyle Augare’s objections (Doc. No. [12]) to Magistrate Judge

Katherine Menendez’s June 26, 2017 Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED.
2.

Magistrate Judge Katherine Menendez’s June 26, 2017 Report and

Recommendation (Doc. No. [11]) is ADOPTED.
3.

Petitioner Delyle Augare’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. No. [1]) is DENIED.
4.

This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
2

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: August 22, 2017

s/Donovan W. Frank
DONOVAN W. FRANK
United States District Judge

3