Thomas James Cleary, Petitioner-appellant, v. Michael L. Benov, Warden, Respondent-appellee, 98 F.3d 1345 (9th Cir. 1996)

 Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 98 F.3d 1345 (9th Cir. 1996) Submitted Oct. 7, 1996. *Decided Oct. 10, 1996

Before: BEEZER, KOZINSKI, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM** 

Thomas James Cleary appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. Cleary contends that the district court erred by finding that he had adequate notice that the Parole Commission intended to use a reckless driving conviction at his parole revocation hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, Grady v. Crabtree, 958 F.2d 874, 874 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam), and affirm for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation filed December 15, 1995, and adopted by the district judge in the order filed January 9, 1996.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.