878 F. 2d 385 - Houghton v. V Kuffner
878 F2d 385 Houghton v. V Kuffner
878 F.2d 385
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Henderson Duvall HOUGHTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Charlotte V. KUFFNER, Marlene Launderville, and Michael
Dotson, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 86-4219.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 21, 1989.*
Decided June 23, 1989.
Paul G. Hatfield, District Judge, Presiding.
Before HUG, SCHROEDER and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Henderson D. Houghton, confined to the Montana State Hospital, appeals pro se the district court's judgment in favor of the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 claim. We reverse and remand.
Houghton filed this section 1983 claim alleging denial of access to the courts by the named defendants. The district court designated a magistrate to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The magistrate submitted findings of facts and recommendations to the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1)(B). Houghton timely filed objections to the magistrate's findings and recommendations, thereby preserving his right to a de novo review in the district court. United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1445 (9th Cir.1988). The district court erred by adopting in whole the magistrate's findings and recommendations without reviewing a transcript of the proceedings before the magistrate. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980); Spaulding v. University of Washington, 676 F.2d 1232, 1235 (9th Cir.1982).
REVERSED and REMANDED.