Stephen Joseph Murphy III
How Judge Murphy decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Procedural preferences
Like the rest of the mied bench, he reviews an unobjected-to magistrate R&R only for soundness, not de novo -- a party that wants de novo review of an SSA (or other referred) R&R must file specific, timely objections. His SSA cross-MSJ orders are a standardized template.
“De novo review of the magistrate judge’s findings is required only if the parties ‘serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.’ ... Because neither party filed objections, de novo review of the Report’s conclusions is not required.”
On AEDPA habeas timeliness he applies the Holland/Pace equitable-tolling test strictly and treats generalized COVID-19 hardship as insufficient absent fact-specific circumstances that actually prevented filing -- pointing out the petitioner prepared the petition without the law library and was never hospitalized.
“The COVID-19 pandemic is not an extraordinary circumstance for equitable tolling without ‘fact-specific circumstances related to the pandemic that hindered [Petitioner’s] ability to timely file a habeas petition.’”
Cautions
On post-trial motions he is deferential to the jury: on a Rule 29 motion he will not reweigh witness credibility, and on a Rule 33 motion he denies a new trial where independent evidence (here a wiretap and pole camera) corroborates the testimony, finding no miscarriage of justice.
“the mountain of evidence obtained from a wiretap and a pole camera corroborated their testimony to the point where a rational jury could only have found Defendant guilty ... beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court will therefore deny the motion for a new trial.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [16] is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [17] is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment [12] is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment [14] is GRANTED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [16] is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [17] is GRANTED.”
“WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s renewed motion for a judgment of acquittal [43] is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for a new trial [44] is DENIED.”
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to dismiss [9] is GRANTED.”
“ORDERED that Motion to Dismiss [16] is GRANTED.”
“Motion for Limited Early Discovery [15] is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“ORDERED that the motion to dismiss [47] is GRANTED IN PART as described above.”
“motion for summary judgment [90] is DENIED.”
“motion for summary judgment [79] is DENIED.”
“the Court will grant summary judgment for Defendant.”
During preliminary Rule 4 review of a pro se Section 2254 petition, the court found that the petitioner had not exhausted state remedies and that relief remained available under Michigan Court Rule 6.500: 'it is hereby ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus [1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.' The court also denied a certificate of appealability and leave to appeal in forma pauperis. This was a court-initiated screening dismissal rather than a ruling on a party's motion.
The court dismissed a Section 2241 habeas action without prejudice on its own initiative after the petitioner failed to comply with an order to pay the $5 filing fee or submit an in forma pauperis application: 'it is hereby ORDERED that the habeas action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.' It also denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis because an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The reviewed matters include Social Security disability appeals, state and federal habeas petitions, and felony criminal cases. His chief-judge and duty assignments also generate warrant and miscellaneous applications, which are excluded from the merits mix. This is a descriptive sample, not a complete caseload count.
Put Judge Murphy's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Murphy actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Murphy's own signed orders and cites them.