Dial v. Gutierrez

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5

9 Shaundelle Dial, No. CV-24-00431-TUC-JGZ

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Mark Gutierrez,

13 Respondent. 14 15 16 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States 17 Magistrate Maria S. Aguilera. (Doc. 19.) Magistrate Judge Aguilera recommends granting 18 Respondent Mark Gutierrez’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 12) and denying Petitioner 19 Shaundelle Dial’s First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 6). 21 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 22 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “[T]he district 23 judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if 24 objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 25 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original). District courts are not required to conduct 26 “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 27 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 28 The parties have not filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation and the 1 || time to file objections has expired. As such, the Court will not consider any objections or || new evidence. 3 Upon review of the record, the Court will adopt Magistrate Judge Aguilera’s 4|| recommendations. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-54 (1985). Petitioner claims a disciplinary hearing violated his right to due || process and right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Magistrate Judge Aguilera 7\| found “Petitioner’s claim that he was denied due process was without merit,” and that the 8 || sanctions imposed on Petitioner of “the loss of 27 days of good conduct time, 30 days of 9|| disciplinary segregation, and the 1-year loss of commissary, phone, and tablet privileges” || are “not grossly disproportionate to the offense”, nor do they create “inhumane prison 11 || conditions, deprive Petitioner of basic necessities, or constitute a dramatic departure from || accepted standards for conditions of confinement” in violation of the Eighth Amendment 13 || prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. (/d. at 4-5 (internal citations omitted).) 14 Accordingly, 15 IT IS ORDERED that: 16 1. Magistrate Judge Aguilera’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is 17|| ADOPTED. 18 2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Petition (Doc. 12) is GRANTED. 20 3. Petitioner’s First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 6) is DENIED. 22 Dated this 26th day of March, 2025. 23 Lernnf DLE 25 sennifer G. Z pps 26 Chiet United States District Judge 27 28

_2-