¶2Unpublished Disposition
¶4NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
¶5Henderson Duvall HOUGHTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Charlotte V. KUFFNER, Marlene Launderville, and Michael
Dotson, Defendants-Appellees.
¶6No. 86-4219.
¶7United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
¶8Submitted June 21, 1989.*
Decided June 23, 1989.
¶9Paul G. Hatfield, District Judge, Presiding.
¶10Before HUG, SCHROEDER and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
¶12Henderson 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.
¶13Houghton 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).
¶14REVERSED and REMANDED.
¶15 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4