Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01941/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01941-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL JAMES MURPHY,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 09cv1941-LAB (RBB)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT &

vs. RECOMMENDATION

MATTHEW L. CATE, Secretary,

Respondent.

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

Case 3:09-cv-01941-LAB-WVG Document 20 Filed 12/10/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 9, 2010

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01941-LAB-WVG Document 20 Filed 12/10/10 Page 2 of 2