Opinion
CV-21-00954-PHX-ROS
12-13-2021
Ismael Antonio Murphy-Richardson, Petitioner, v. Maricopa County Superior Court, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
Honorable Roslyn O. Silver, Senior United States District Judge.
On November 17, 2021, Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) addressing the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 119). The R&R concludes some of Petitioner's claims were procedurally defaulted while others cannot be brought in a federal habeas proceeding. The R&R recommends the amended petition be denied in full. The R&R also recommends denial of Petitioner's motion to stay state court proceedings as well as his request to stay these federal proceedings. (Doc. 119 at 28-31).
On December 1, 2021, Petitioner filed objections to the R&R. (Doc. 143 at 3). Those objections, however, do not set forth any factual or legal arguments regarding particular portions of the R&R. Instead, the objections argue there is “new reliable” evidence the R&R ignored. While not clear, the allegedly new evidence appears to be Petitioner's own allegations in the present case. The absence of specific objections to the R&R is “tantamount to no objection at all.” Haley v. Stewart, 2006 WL 1980649, at *2 (D. Ariz. July 11, 2006). Therefore, the Court need not review the R&R and it will be adopted in full.
In addition to the motions to stay addressed in the R&R, Petitioner has filed many other motions related to the handling of this case. Petitioner has also filed objections to many decisions made by the Magistrate Judge before the R&R was issued. The Court has reviewed those filings but none of them have merit. Therefore, the objections and motions will be summarily denied.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 119) is ADOPTED in full. The amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 9) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of Respondents.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a certificate of appealability is DENIED because jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether the Court was correct in its procedural ruling.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the following appeals of Magistrate Judge orders and the following motions are all DENIED (Doc. 43, 53, 60, 61, 65, 90, 113, 114, 115, 118, 120, 121, 125, 126, 127, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138).