Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00882/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00882-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael O’Brian Watkins, 

Petitioner,

v.

Louis Winn, Warden, 

Respondent, _______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 12-882 TUC DCB(BPV)

O R D E R

This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco, on February 11, 2013,

pursuant to Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, District of Arizona (Local

Rules), Rule (Civil) 72.1 and 72.2. On November 5, 2013, he issued a Report and

Recommendation (R&R), (Doc. 18: R&R), that this Court enter an order dismissing the Petition

for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The duties of the district court, when reviewing a R&R by a Magistrate Judge, are set

forth in Rule 72 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 Report and Recommendation (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.’” Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). When no objections are filed, the

district court does not need to review the R&R de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000

n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir.2003) (en

banc).

Case 4:12-cv-00882-DCB Document 19 Filed 12/24/13 Page 1 of 3
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

 1 Instead, on October 17, 2012, he filed a “sensitive” Request for Administrative Remedy

complaining that he received the incident report in retaliation for expressing his intent to file

a grievance. The Regional Director rejected the request for administrative review because it

was not sensitive, i.e., it was not something that would place him in danger if it became known

at the institution. Petitioner was directed to file his request for review, pursuant to grievance

procedures. 

- 2 -

The parties were sent copies of the R&R and instructed they had 14 days to file written

objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), see also, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 72 (party objecting

to the recommended disposition has fourteen (14) days to file specific, written objections).

There has been no Objection filed to the R&R. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Honorable Bernardo P. Velasco, United States Magistrate Judge, rejected the

Petitioner’s assertion that his due process rights were violated because he was wrongfully

convicted of a disciplinary violation and lost good time credits. Petitioner is challenging the

legality of the manner in which his sentence is being executed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

The record reflects that after a hearing, the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) found

staff member’s statements and observations credible and believable in respect to charges against

Petitioner that he attempted to assault an officer. She issued a written report on October 4,

2012, imposing sanctions including the disallowance of 27 days of good conduct sentence

credit. Subsequent to the decision from the DHO, Watkins should have filed, but did not file,

an administrative appeal.1

 While not a jurisdictional prerequisite, federal courts require

exhaustion as a prudential matter. (R&R at 5-8.) Petitioner does not assert any excuse to justify

waiving the exhaustion requirement. Id. Additionally, the Petitioner’s due process arguments

fail on the merits. Id. at 8-12.)

There are no objections and review has, therefore, been waived. Nevertheless, the Court

reviews at a minimum, de novo, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law. Robbins v. Carey,

481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998)

(conclusions of law by a magistrate judge reviewed de novo); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153,

1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure to object standing alone will not ordinarily waive question of law,

Case 4:12-cv-00882-DCB Document 19 Filed 12/24/13 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

but is a factor in considering the propriety of finding waiver)). The Court finds the R&R to be

thorough and well-reasoned, without any clear error in law or fact. See United States v.

Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617-618 (9th Cir. 1989) (United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617-

618 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) as providing for district court to reconsider

matters delegated to magistrate judge when there is clear error or recommendation is contrary

to law). The Court accepts and adopts the R&R as the opinion of the Court, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). For the reasons stated in the R&R, the Court dismisses the Petition.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 18) is adopted as the

opinion of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment

accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event the Plaintiff, proceeding here in forma

pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, files an appeal, the Court finds the appeal is not taken in good

faith. 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) and FRAP 24(a).

DATED this 23rd day of December, 2013.

Case 4:12-cv-00882-DCB Document 19 Filed 12/24/13 Page 3 of 3