Sloan v. Department of Housing & Urban Development

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) employees’ contravention of standards incorporated in HUD’s Consolidated Audit Guide for Audits of HUD Programs did not support a claim for violation of due process
• finding agency decision was arbitrary and capricious under the federal Administrative Procedure Act but that agency did not violate due process
• district courts have discretion to consider new evidence raised 18 for the first time in an objection to a magistrate judge’s R&R
• factual allegations and claims that are raised for the first time in 19 objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation need not be addressed
• “[A] district court has discretion, but is not required, to consider evidence 16 presented for the first time in a party’s objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation.”
• “When a defendant has raised a claim and has been given a full 18 and fair opportunity to litigate it on direct appeal, that claim may not be used as a basis for 19 a subsequent § 2255 petition.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).