Motley v. Graber

Filing 16

*ORDER ADOPTING 15 Report and Recommendations as to Gerald Motley. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is dismissed with prejudice. Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and shall then close its file. Signed by Judge Cindy K Jorgenson on 3/22/13. (SMBE) *Modified to correct Petitioner's name on 3/22/2013 (SMBE).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9
GERALD MOTLEY,
10
Petitioner,
11
vs.
12
CONRAD GRABER,
13
Respondent.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

Recommendation and dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

23

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

24

1.

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

25

2.

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

26
27
28

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
3.
matter.

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

1

4.

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

DATED this 22nd day of March, 2013.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-