Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00248/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00248-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edmon Gasaway
Petitioner
JT Shartle
Respondent

Document Text:

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

Edmon Gasaway,

Petitioner,

v. 

JT Shartle,

Respondent.

No. CV-15-00248-TUC-RCC

ORDER 

Pending before the Court are Petitioner Edmond Gasaway’s Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) and Magistrate Judge Charles R. 

Pyle’s Report and Recommendation (R & R) (Doc. 12). On September 19, 2016, 

Petitioner filed an objection to the R & R. Doc. 13. On October 4, 2016, Respondent filed 

a response. For the foregoing reasons, the Court shall overrule Petitioner’s objections, 

accept and adopt Magistrate Judge Pyle’s R & R as the findings of fact and conclusions 

of law of this Court and deny Petitioner’s writ.

I. Background

The factual and procedural background in this case is thoroughly detailed in Magistrate 

Judge Pyle’s R & R. The Court fully incorporates the “Background” section of the R & R 

into this Order.

II. Discussion

The duties of the district court in connection with a R & R 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 

Case 4:15-cv-00248-RCC Document 15 Filed 01/03/17 Page 1 of 3
- 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

“accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or 

return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Where the parties object to an 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, 149-50 (1985).

Here, Petitioner makes the same arguments that he claimed in his petition. 

Specifically, Petitioner alleges that his due process rights were violated “before he ever 

entered a [Disciplinary Hearing]” because the investigating officer did not conduct a 

“reasonable investigation.” Doc. 13. Petitioner claims that the investigating officer did 

not determine which locker held the weapon. However, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 

539, 565-66 (1974) does not require specific investigation procedures and only requires 

“some evidence” to support the disciplinary decision. Because the weapon was found in 

Petitioner’s area of responsibility, there is some evidence to support the disciplinary 

hearing outcome. Thus, Petitioner’s objections to Magistrate Judge Pyle’s R&R are 

overruled and the petition is denied.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Case 4:15-cv-00248-RCC Document 15 Filed 01/03/17 Page 2 of 3
- 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

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner Edmond Gasaway’s Petition for Writ 

of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Court shall adopt the Magistrate Judge 

Charles R. Pyle’s Report and Recommendation as the findings of fact and conclusions of 

law of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and 

close the case. 

Dated this 15th day of December, 2016.

Case 4:15-cv-00248-RCC Document 15 Filed 01/03/17 Page 3 of 3