Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02245/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02245-1/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

Michael Dwayne McGee, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

C.J. De Rosa, Warden, et. al.,

Respondents, 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-2245-PHX-MHM (JJM)

 

ORDER

Petitioner pro se has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. §

2241. (Doc. 1). The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jacqueline

Marshall who has issued a Report and Recommendation that recommends that the Petition

should be denied and that all pending motions should be denied as moot. (Doc. 13). Petitioner

has not filed written objections to the Report and Recommendation. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court must review the legal analysis in the Report and Recommendation de novo.

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court must review the factual analysis in the Report and

Recommendation de novo for those facts to which objections are filed. "Failure to object to

a magistrate judge's recommendation waives all objections to the judge's findings of fact."

Jones v. Wood, 207 F.3d 557, 562 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000). 

////

Case 2:04-cv-02245-MHM Document 14 Filed 03/30/06 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 - 2 -

DISCUSSION

Petitioner has challenged punishment imposed pursuant to a disciplinary proceeding

while he was confined as an inmate at FCI in Phoenix, Arizona. Petitioner was incarcerated

at FCI-Phoenix based on a criminal conviction obtained in the Southern District of

Mississippi. At the time of the incident underlying the disciplinary action, Petitioner had been

housed in cell 124 for three weeks. Petitioner shared the cell with two other inmates. On

March 14, 2004, prison officials conducted a random search of the cell and found a ten-inch,

unsharpened metal rod in the main light fixture. Petitioner was charged with

possession/manufacture/introduction of a weapon in violation of Code 104 of the Federal

Bureau of Prisons Regulations. Petitioner timely received notice of the charges, was advised

of his rights before the Disciplinary Hearing Officer ("DHO") and was afforded an

opportunity to call witnesses. On March 22, 2004, Petitioner appeared before the DHO and

waived his right to staff representation and did not request any witnesses. Petitioner claimed

that he was not aware of the weapon and had just moved into the cell. The DHO found

Petitioner guilty of the disciplinary charge. As a result of this finding, one day of good

conduct time was taken away and Petitioner was placed into disciplinary segregation for 30

days. Petitioner exhausted his administrative remedies before filing his petition for writ of

habeas corpus. 

Petitioner contends in the habeas petition that he was deprived of due process as a

result of the loss of one day of good conduct credit and because he was unprepared to defend

himself. As the Magistrate Judge has discussed in the Report and Recommendation,

Petitioner was afforded notice of the charge one week before the hearing and given an

opportunity to request witnesses but declined to do so. The resulting disciplinary finding was

based on "some evidence" since Petitioner was housed in the cell where the weapon was

found even though he shared the cell with two other inmates. See Superintendent

Massachusetts Correctional Institute v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 457 (1985).

////

Case 2:04-cv-02245-MHM Document 14 Filed 03/30/06 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 -

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 13) as the Order of the Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for case status (Doc. 10) is

denied as moot.

DATED this 24th day of March, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02245-MHM Document 14 Filed 03/30/06 Page 3 of 3