From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gasaway v. Winn

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jul 29, 2016
No. CV-13-00270-TUC-RCC (D. Ariz. Jul. 29, 2016)

Opinion

No. CV-13-00270-TUC-RCC

07-29-2016

Edmond Gasaway, Petitioner, v. Louis W Winn, Jr., Respondent.


ORDER

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. Accordingly,

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 case.

Dated this 29th day of July, 2016.

/s/_________

Raner C. Collins

Chief United States District Judge


Summaries of

Gasaway v. Winn

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jul 29, 2016
No. CV-13-00270-TUC-RCC (D. Ariz. Jul. 29, 2016)
Case details for

Gasaway v. Winn

Case Details

Full title:Edmond Gasaway, Petitioner, v. Louis W Winn, Jr., Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Date published: Jul 29, 2016

Citations

No. CV-13-00270-TUC-RCC (D. Ariz. Jul. 29, 2016)