Case Name: Agustin SALGADO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert HOOD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-05-29
Citations: 36 F. App'x 909
Docket Number: No. 01-35424; D.C. No. CV-00-00559-AJB/ST
Parties: Agustin SALGADO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert HOOD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 36
Pages: 908–909

Head Matter:
Agustin SALGADO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert HOOD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 01-35424.
D.C. No. CV-00-00559-AJB/ST.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2002.
Decided May 29, 2002.
Before FERNANDEZ, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Federal prisoner Agustín Salgado appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition challenging the Bureau of Prison's revocation of twenty-seven days of his accumulated good conduct time. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review de novo the district court's grant or denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269 (9th Cir.1989). We review de novo a district court's legal conclusion that the disciplinary committee's findings are supported by some evidence. Id.
Salgado contends that prison officials abused their discretion in the disciplinary hearing process. Salgado further contends that the district court erred by adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. Because there is "some evidence" in the record supporting the prison disciplinary committee's findings, we cannot say that the prison officials abused their discretion by holding Salgado responsible for possessing the narcotics. See Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454-55, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985); Bostic, 884 F.2d at 1269-70. Accordingly, the district court did not err in finding that habeas relief is not warranted. See Van Tran v. Lindsey, 212 F.3d 1143, 1150-51 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 944, 121 S.Ct. 340, 148 L.Ed.2d 274 (2000).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.