Snyder v. Thomas

Full title: DARRELL L.SNYDER Petitioner, v. J.E. THOMAS, Warden, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Apr 23, 2009

08-CV-960-PK (D. Or. Apr. 23, 2009)

Opinion

08-CV-960-PK.

April 23, 2009

DARRELL L. SNYDER, Fed. Reg. No. 63992-065, Sheridan, OR, Petitioner, Pro Se KARIN J. IMMERGUT, United States Attorney, SUZANNE A. BRATIS, Assistant United States Attorney, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Respondent.

ORDER

ANNA BROWN, District Judge

Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation (#10) on February 3, 2009, in which he recommends the Court deny Petitioner Darrell L. Snyder's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#1) and dismiss this matter with prejudice. Petitioner filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F. 3d 1114, 1121 (9^th Cir. 2003) ( en banc); United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9^th Cir. 1988).

Petitioner objects to the Findings and Recommendation on the ground that the "relative enquiry [ sic] . . . is not whether the evidence in the matter is sufficient to support the DHO findings . . . [rather it is] whether enforcement personnel are required to comply with established federal law defining the procedures to be followed in every disciplinary process."

The Magistrate Judge addressed the issue that Petitioner raises in his Objections and noted:

Under Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), an inmate facing administrative disciplinary charges is entitled, at a minimum, to the following protections: (1) to receive written notice of the charges no less than 24 hours before the disciplinary hearing; (2) to present evidence and witnesses in his defense where this will not jeopardize institutional safety or correctional goals; and (3) to receive a written statement of the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action. Id. at 563-69. The record reveals Snyder received these protections.

Petitioner did not submit any evidence with his Objections to establish that he did not receive the protections required under Wolff or any authority to establish that Wolff does not apply in this matter. After reviewing the record de novo, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's legal analysis and findings.

In summary, this Court has carefully considered Petitioner's Objections and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. The Court also has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and does not find any error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation (#10), DENIES Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#1), and DISMISSES this matter with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.