ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING CASE

FEDERICO A. MORENO, District Judge.

THE MATTER was referred to the Honorable Patrick A. White, United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation on Petitioner's pro se Petitioner for Writ of HabeasCorpus (D.E. No. 1), construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate, tiled on January 7, 2014. The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (D.E. No. 10) on July 24, 2014. The Court has reviewed theentire tile and record. The Court has made a de novo review of the issues and notes that the Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to do so has now passed. It is

ADJUDGED that United States Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White's Report and Recommendation (D.E. No. 10) on July 24, 2014 is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. Accordingly, it is

ADJUDGED Petitioner Richardson's pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, construed as a Section 2255 Motion to Vacate, is dismissed as an unauthorized second or successive motion to vacate, over which the Court lacks jurisdiction. See United states v. Terrell, 141 Fed. Appx. 849, 852 (11th Cir. 2005) (motion to reopen and amend the defendant's initial Section 2255 motion should be construed as a second or successive motion where the initial motion had already been ruled on by the district court and was pending on appeal). Richardson tiled the instant petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while the appealin his first Section 2255 case, No.09-CV-22349-SEITZ, was pending. Indeed, even if Richardson sought permission from the Eleventh Circuitto file a second or successive Section 2255 motion, it is unlikely he would have receive such perm ission because Richardson has not identified any newly-discovered evidence. Moreover, Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013), to which Richardson citesto argue that his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum for the offense, does not apply retroactively. Jeanty v. Warden, FCI-Miami, No. 13-14931 (11th Cir. July 22, 2014). lt is further

ADJUDGED that no Certificate of Appealability shall issue. Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). Accordingly, this case is CLOSED

DONE AND ORDERED.