Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00270/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00270-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Edmond Gasaway,

Petitioner,

v. 

Louis W Winn, Jr.,

Respondent.

No. CV-13-00270-TUC-RCC

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. 

Case 4:13-cv-00270-RCC Document 33 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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.

Case 4:13-cv-00270-RCC Document 33 Filed 07/29/16 Page 2 of 2