Jesse Scott Fulcher v. Ryan Thornell, et al.

Opinion

WO

Jesse Scott Fulcher, No. CV-25-08142-PCT-JAT

Petitioner, ORDER

v.

Ryan Thornell, et al.,

Respondents. Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, (Doc. 1 at 1), and Magistrate Judge Bachus issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice, (Doc. 15 at 22). Petitioner objected to the R&R and Defendants filed a response to his objections. (Docs. 18, 20). Petitioner now moves for a 45-day extension to “prepare a meaningful Reply” to Defendants’ Response. (Doc. 21). Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) expressly authorizes parties to file objections to a magistrate judge’s R&R and to respond to another party’s objections, the rule does not authorize parties to reply. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (b)(2). Because neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor this Court’s Local Rules entitle a party to file a reply in support of R&R objections, the Court will deny Petitioner’s request. Ventana Med. Sys., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 709 F. Supp. 2d 744, 747 (D. Ariz. 2010), aff’d, 454 Fed. Appx. 596 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting that Rule 72(b)(2) “does not provide for a reply”); Baca v. Thornell, CV-23-01789-PHX-DJH, 2025 WL 26705, at *2 (D. Ariz. Jan. 1 3, 2025) (“[nJeither the Rules of Civil Procedure nor this Court’s Local Rules” permit replies in support of objections to an R&R); Cassise v. Brnovich, CV-20-00633-PHX- MTL, 2020 WL 5544427, at *1 (D. Ariz. Sept. 16, 2020) (“Because Petitioner was not permitted to file a reply, the Court will not consider it.”). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Deadline to File a Reply (Doc. 21) is denied. Dated this 22nd day of April, 2026.

James A. Teilborg Senior United States District Judge

-2-