UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 9, 2010
MICHAEL JAMES MURPHY,
MATTHEW L. CATE, SECRETARY, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorablelarryalanburns United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT &RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Michael J. Murphy, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on September 2, 2009. Murphy challenges his convictions on count 1, first degree robbery; count 2, assault with a semiautomatic firearm, a handgun; count 3, assault with a semiautomatic firearm, a rifle; count 4, residential burglary; count 5, false imprisonment by violence or menace; count 6, grand theft of personal property; count 7, intimidating a witness by malicious use of force or violence; and counts 9, 10, 11, and 12, tampering with electric, telephone and cable television lines.
The Court referred the petition to Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks for a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Civil Local Rule 72.1(d). The case was later transferred to Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo. After the petition was briefed on the merits, Judge Gallo issued an R&R recommending that the Court DENY it. The R&R ordered the parties to file any objections by September 21, 2010 and advised them that failure to do so may waive the right to raise those objections on appeal. Neither party filed objections, nor asked for additional time.
In considering an R&R, a district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "[T]he court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). "[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc).
The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds it to be thorough and correct, particularly considering that Murphy failed to file any objections. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the R&R. The petition is DENIED with prejudice.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.