Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00688/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00688-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

Fox J. Salerno, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV07-688-PHX-ROS

ORDER

On July 10, 2007, Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson issued a Report and

Recommendation (R&R) recommending the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied.

Petitioner filed objections. For the following reasons, the R&R will be adopted in full and

the petition will be denied.

In his petition for habeas corpus, Petitioner claimed that he was denied due process

at his disciplinary proceeding at the Arizona Department of Corrections because insufficient

evidence supported the finding of guilt. The Magistrate Judge concluded Petitioner’s claim

failed on its merits. Petitioner timely filed his objections. 

The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that the

district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if

objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

Case 2:07-cv-00688-ROS Document 16 Filed 08/21/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). In this case, Petitioner objected to the

Magistrate’s findings and recommendations; therefore, the Court’s review is de novo.

Having reviewed the Magistrate’s findings and recommendations de novo, the Court

agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Petitioner’s claim fails on its merits. As discussed in

the R&R, due process only requires “some evidence” to support the prison’s disciplinary

action. Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985). More than “some evidence,” with

indicia of reliability, was presented at the prison’s disciplinary proceeding.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11) is ADOPTED

and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

DATED this 21st day of August, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00688-ROS Document 16 Filed 08/21/07 Page 2 of 2