Opinion
4:21cv388-MW/MAF
04-25-2022
SONYA PITTMAN, Petitioner, v. WARDEN STRONG, FCI TALLAHASSEE, Respondent.
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MARK E. WALKER, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 9. Upon consideration, no objections having been filed by the parties, this Court agrees that Petitioner's habeas petition is due to be denied. Taking her allegations in her petition and attachments, ECF Nos. 1 and 1-1, as true and construing all inferences in the light most favorable to her, it is plain on the face of her petition that Petitioner was afforded procedural due process in her prison disciplinary proceeding and that the factfinder's decision in her disciplinary proceeding was supported by some evidence in the record. See Dean-Mitchell v. Reese, 837 F.3d 1107, 1112 (11th Cir. 2016) (citing Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-67 (1974)); see also Superintendent, Mass. Corrs. Institution, Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985)).
Indeed, she admits that she promptly “plead guilty” to the alleged assault. ECF No. 1 at 8. She also notes in her attachments that “Lt. C. Byrd came to county and served [her] shot” prior to her disciplinary hearing, referencing the written Incident Report the Government filed at ECF No. 8-2. And she admits that she received a copy of her DHO report after her disciplinary hearing. ECF No. 1 at 10 (“I never received anything in writing regarding delay until I was given DHO report when I arrived back in/at Coleman for transfer purposes in March.”); see also ECF No. 1-1 at 1 (“At that time I went to Counselor Foor here at Tallahassee . . . and asked for a copy of my DHO Packet and Incident Report because I hadn[']t kept a copy.” (emphasis added)). Accordingly, given that-on the face of her petition and attachments-Petitioner's disciplinary hearing and sanction were consistent with the requirements of procedural and substantive due process, IT IS ORDERED:
The report and recommendation, ECF No. 9, is accepted and adopted as this Court's opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Petitioner's § 2241 habeas petition, ECF No. 1, is DENIED.” The Clerk shall close the file.
SO ORDERED.