ORDER

WILLIAM TERRELL HODGES, District Judge.

This cause comes on for consideration upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation dated December 23, 2016. (Doc. 26). The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has filed objections at Doc. 34. I have made a de novo review based on those objections. Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and the timely filed objections, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

In his objections, Petitioner argues that "in order to show that counsel's action was a strategic decision or a tactical decision an evidentiary hearing must be held." ECF No. 34 at 7. This is simply not the law, however. It does not matter whether defense counsel actually reasoned along the lines articulated by the Court because the test to be applied is one of objective reasonableness. See Chandler v. United States, 218 F.3d 1305, 1311 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc), citing United States v. Fortson, 194 F.3d 730, 736 (6th Cir. 1999)(determining — without district court findings or even an evidentiary hearing — that defendant had not overcome the presumption of effective assistance because the court could conceive of numerous reasonable strategic motives for counsel's actions at trial) (internal citations omitted)(emphasis supplied). See also, Thomas v. United States, 596 Fed. Appx. 808, 810 (11th Cir. 2015)("The test is whether counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, not whether counsel could provide some explanation for their actions.")

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

DONE and ORDERED.