govinfo:USCOURTS-kyed-6_25-cr-00054-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 
SOUTHERN DIVISION 
LONDON 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
          Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
DUSTIN MURPHY, 
 
          Defendant. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
 
No. 6:25-CR-54-REW-HAI-1 
 
 
ORDER 
***  ***  ***  *** 
After conducting Rule 11 proceedings, see DE 47 (Minute Entry), United States Magistrate 
Judge Hanly A. Ingram recommended that the undersigned accept Defendan t Dustin Murphy’s 
guilty plea and adjudge him guilty of Count 1 of the Indictment (DE 1).  See DE 48 
(Recommendation); see also DE 45 (Plea Agreement).  Judge Ingram expressly informed Murphy 
of his right to object to the recommendation and secure de novo review from the undersigned.  See 
DE 48 at 2-3.  The established three-day objection deadline has passed, and no party has objected. 
The Court is not required to “review . . . a magistrate [judge]’s factual or legal conclusions, 
under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.” Thomas v. 
Arn, 106 S. Ct. 466, 472 (1985); see also Berkshire v. Dahl , 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019) 
(noting that the Sixth Circuit has “long held that, when a defendant does ‘not raise an argument in 
his objections to the magistrate [judge]’s report and recommendation . . . he has forfeited his right 
to raise this issue on appeal’” (quote brackets simplified) (quoting Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 
176 (6th Cir. 1996))); United States v. Olano, 113 S. Ct. 1770, 1777 (1993) (distinguishing waiver 
and forfeiture); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2) –(3) (limiting de novo review duty to “any objection” 
Case: 6:25-cr-00054-REW-HAI     Doc #: 49     Filed: 06/01/26     Page: 1 of 2 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
2 
filed); 28 U.S.C. §  636(b)(1) (limiting de novo  review duty to “those portions” of the 
recommendation “to which objection is made”). 
The Court, with no objection from any party and on full review of the record, ORDERS 
as follows: 
1. The Court ADOPTS DE 48, ACCEPTS Murphy’s guilty plea, and ADJUDGES Murphy 
guilty of Count 1 of the Indictment; and 
2. The Court will issue a separate sentencing order.1 
This the 1st day of June, 2026. 
 
 
1 At the hearing, Judge Ingram remanded Murphy to custody. See DE 47. This was his status pretrial. See 
DE 12. Absent an intervening order, Murphy will remain in custody pending sentencing. 
Case: 6:25-cr-00054-REW-HAI     Doc #: 49     Filed: 06/01/26     Page: 2 of 2 - Page
ID#: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight