Jesse Scott Fulcher v. Ryan Thornell, et al.

D. Arizona

Jesse Scott Fulcher v. Ryan Thornell, et al.

DecidedApril 22, 2026

Docket3:25-cv-08142

StatusUnknown

This text of Jesse Scott Fulcher v. Ryan Thornell, et al. (Jesse Scott Fulcher v. Ryan Thornell, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jesse Scott Fulcher v. Ryan Thornell, et al., (D. Ariz. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

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

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Ryan Thornell, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 16 2254, (Doc. 1 at 1), and Magistrate Judge Bachus issued a Report and Recommendation 17 (“R&R”) recommending the petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice, (Doc. 15 at 18 22). Petitioner objected to the R&R and Defendants filed a response to his objections. 19 (Docs. 18, 20). Petitioner now moves for a 45-day extension to “prepare a meaningful 20 Reply” to Defendants’ Response. (Doc. 21). 21 Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) expressly authorizes parties to 22 file objections to a magistrate judge’s R&R and to respond to another party’s objections, 23 the rule does not authorize parties to reply. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (b)(2). Because neither the 24 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor this Court’s Local Rules entitle a party to file a reply 25 in support of R&R objections, the Court will deny Petitioner’s request. Ventana Med. Sys., 26 Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 709 F. Supp. 2d 744, 747 (D. Ariz. 2010), aff’d, 27 454 Fed. Appx. 596 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting that Rule 72(b)(2) “does not provide for a 28 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 2|| replies in support of objections to an R&R); Cassise v. Brnovich, CV-20-00633-PHX- 3|| 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.”). 5 Accordingly, 6 IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Deadline to File a Reply (Doc. 21) is denied. 8 Dated this 22nd day of April, 2026. 9

11 James A. Teilborg 12 Senior United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

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

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Ryan Thornell, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 16 2254, (Doc. 1 at 1), and Magistrate Judge Bachus issued a Report and Recommendation 17 (“R&R”) recommending the petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice, (Doc. 15 at 18 22). Petitioner objected to the R&R and Defendants filed a response to his objections. 19 (Docs. 18, 20). Petitioner now moves for a 45-day extension to “prepare a meaningful 20 Reply” to Defendants’ Response. (Doc. 21). 21 Although Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) expressly authorizes parties to 22 file objections to a magistrate judge’s R&R and to respond to another party’s objections, 23 the rule does not authorize parties to reply. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (b)(2). Because neither the 24 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor this Court’s Local Rules entitle a party to file a reply 25 in support of R&R objections, the Court will deny Petitioner’s request. Ventana Med. Sys., 26 Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 709 F. Supp. 2d 744, 747 (D. Ariz. 2010), aff’d, 27 454 Fed. Appx. 596 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting that Rule 72(b)(2) “does not provide for a 28 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 2|| replies in support of objections to an R&R); Cassise v. Brnovich, CV-20-00633-PHX- 3|| 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.”). 5 Accordingly, 6 IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Deadline to File a Reply (Doc. 21) is denied. 8 Dated this 22nd day of April, 2026. 9

11 James A. Teilborg 12 Senior United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jesse Scott Fulcher v. Ryan Thornell, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jesse-scott-fulcher-v-ryan-thornell-et-al-azd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack