Murphy v. Laney
ORDER: The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Russo's Findings and Recommendation 20 . Accordingly, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and this case is dismissed with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is denied becaus e Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Signed on 2/16/2021 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (Deposited in outgoing mail to pro se party on 2/17/2021.) (dsg)
Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
ROBERT DOYLE MURPHY,
HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Russo issued a Findings and Recommendation on November 3, 2020, in
which she recommends that the Court deny the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and enter a
judgment of dismissal. F&R, ECF 20. The matter is now before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
1 - ORDER
Page 2 of 2
Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation were
timely filed, the Court is relieved of its obligation to review the record de novo. United States v.
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v.
Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of
Magistrate Judge’s report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal
principles de novo, the Court finds no error.
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Russo’s Findings and Recommendation .
Accordingly, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and this case is dismissed with
prejudice. A certificate of appealability is denied because Petitioner has not made a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 16, 2021
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge
2 - ORDER
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?