Gaffney v. Director, TDCJ-CID

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE for 3 Report and Recommendation. ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and the case is DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. All motions not previously ruled on are DENIED. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 2/22/2016. (kls, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION

PAUL SEAN GAFFNEY, #759646

'

VS.

'

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID

'

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16cv40

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Petitioner Paul Sean Gaffney, an inmate confined in the Texas prison system, filed the
above-styled and numbered petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Don D. Bush, who issued a Report and
Recommendation concluding that the petition should be denied. Petitioner has filed objections.
The lawsuit concerns a prison disciplinary case. In his objections, Petitioner argues that
the prison disciplinary captain did not afford him his due process rights, as provided by the
Supreme Court in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). He complains that the Report and
Recommendation did not delve into a discussion of his due process rights.
“Federal habeas relief cannot be had absent the allegation by a [petitioner] that he or she
has been deprived of some right secured to him or her by the United States Constitution or the laws
of the United States.” Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations and
citation omitted). Petitioner argues that he was denied his due process rights in his disciplinary
case, however, the Fifth Circuit has made it clear that an inmate has a protected liberty interest
guaranteeing his right to due process if and only if he lost good time and is eligible for release on
1

mandatory supervision. Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 769 (5th Cir. 1997). See also Dorsey
v. McFarlin, 609 F. App’x 266, 267 (5th Cir. 2015) (same); Evans v. Baker, 442 F. App’x 108,
110 (5th Cir. 2011) (same). Petitioner acknowledges that his conviction includes a deadly
weapon finding and that he is ineligible for release on mandatory supervision. As such, the
punishment he received in the disciplinary case did not involve a protected liberty interest, and he
is not entitled to have his disciplinary case considered on the merits. Petitioner’s objections lack
merit.
The Report of the Magistrate Judge, which contains his proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for the disposition of such action, has been presented for consideration, and
having made a de novo review of the objections raised by Petitioner to the Report, the court is of
the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and Petitioner’s
objections are without merit. It is therefore
ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and the case is
DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. All motions not
previously ruled on are DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 22 day of February, 2016.

___________________________________
Ron Clark, United States District Judge

2