Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00080/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00080-1/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

GERALD MOTLEY,

Petitioner, 

vs.

CONRAD GRABER, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 10-080-TUC-CKJ (JR) 

ORDER

On February 12, 2013, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau issued a Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 15) in which she recommended the Court dismiss with prejudice the

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1). The Report and Recommendation advised the

parties that, pursuant Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2), any party may serve and file written objections

within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation.

No objections have been filed within the time provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After an

independent review, the Court finds it is appropriate to adopt the Report and

Recommendation and dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) is ADOPTED.

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

3. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and shall then close its file in this

matter. 

Case 4:10-cv-00080-CKJ Document 16 Filed 03/22/13 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 -

4. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event

Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because

reasonable could not “debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have

been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve

encouragement to proceed further’.” See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see

also Close v. Thomas, 653 F.3d 970, 974 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2011) (“COA is not required to appeal

the denial of a § 2241 petition filed by a person in federal custody”).

DATED this 22nd day of March, 2013.

Case 4:10-cv-00080-CKJ Document 16 Filed 03/22/13 Page 2 of 2