Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01390/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01390-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

William Phillip Murphy, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Federal Bureau of Prisons, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-12-01390-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus and United States Magistrate Judge David Duncan’s Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”). Docs. 5, 12. The R&R recommends that the Court deny and 

dismiss the Petition with prejudice. Doc. 12 at 3. The Magistrate Judge advised the 

parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file 

timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. 

Id. at 3 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 6(a), 6(b); United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). 

 The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to 

review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 

(1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is 

not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must 

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 

objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is welltaken. The Court will accept the R&R and deny and dismiss the Petition with prejudice. 

Case 2:12-cv-01390-GMS Document 13 Filed 05/28/13 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in 

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended 

disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with 

instructions.”). 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. Magistrate Judge Duncan’s R&R (Doc. 12) is accepted. 

 2. Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 5) is 

denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

 3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 

 4. Because this case arises under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241, no ruling on a certificate 

of appealability is required. 

 Dated this 28th day of May, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-01390-GMS Document 13 Filed 05/28/13 Page 2 of 2