Thomas Creighton Shrader v. B. W. Plumley

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THOMAS CREIGHTON SHRADER,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
B. W. PLUMLEY,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 18-15905
D.C. No. 1:17-cv-01338-LJO-JDP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 18, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Thomas Creighton Shrader appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, Tablada v. Thomas, 533
F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), we vacate and remand.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
SEP 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-15905
When, as here, a party files written objections to the magistrate judge’s
findings and recommendations, the district judge is required to conduct a de novo
review of the proposed findings and recommendations. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C). The errors in the district judge’s order adopting the magistrate
judge’s report, including the references to Shrader as a state prisoner proceeding
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and constitutional claims which Shrader did not raise,
suggest that he may not have conducted such a review in this case. Accordingly,
we vacate the judgment and the May 10, 2018, order, and remand for the district
judge to conduct a de novo review of the findings and recommendations.1
In light of this decision, we need not address Shrader’s remaining
arguments.
Shrader’s motion to take judicial notice of his objections to the magistrate
judge’s findings and recommendations and rebuttal to the government’s response
is denied as unnecessary. Those documents were included in the government’s
supplemental excerpts of record and have been considered.
VACATED and REMANDED.
1 To the extent Shrader challenged the Bureau of Prisons’ calculation of his release
date, the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and we therefore
reject the government’s argument to the contrary. See Hernandez v. Campbell, 204
F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000).

-- 2 of 2 --