Filed: Feb. 24, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 24, 2020
Summary: ORDER LEIGH MARTIN MAY , District Judge . This case comes before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Final Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), Dkt. No. [71] recommending that Defendant's Motion to Arrest Judgment [69] be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), Defendant filed Objections [75]. After due consideration, the Court enters the following Order. I. LEGAL STANDARD Under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recomm
Summary: ORDER LEIGH MARTIN MAY , District Judge . This case comes before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Final Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), Dkt. No. [71] recommending that Defendant's Motion to Arrest Judgment [69] be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), Defendant filed Objections [75]. After due consideration, the Court enters the following Order. I. LEGAL STANDARD Under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recomme..
More
ORDER
LEIGH MARTIN MAY, District Judge.
This case comes before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Final Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), Dkt. No. [71] recommending that Defendant's Motion to Arrest Judgment [69] be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Defendant filed Objections [75]. After due consideration, the Court enters the following Order.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations for clear error if no objections are filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files objections, however, the district court must review de novo any part of the Magistrate Judge's disposition that is the subject of a proper objection. Id. As Defendant filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings, the Court reviews the challenged findings and recommendations on a de novo basis.
II. DISCUSSION
To begin, Defendant does not identify—as is required—with any specificity the basis of his objection. See Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989) (objections to an R&R "shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection."). Rather, he generally asks the Court "to reconsider because the court never had jurisdiction." Dkt. No. [75] at 1. Even so, as the Magistrate Judge explained, a motion to arrest judgment must be filed within 14 days after the court accepts a plea of guilty. Dkt. No. [71] at 2 (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 34(b)). Defendant filed his motion to arrest more than two years after the Court accepted his plea of guilty. Dkt. Nos. [11, 69]. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the Court lacks jurisdiction to rule on Defendant's Motion.
III. CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the Court OVERRULES Defendant's objections to the R&R [75] and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [71] as the opinion of this Court. Defendant's Motion to Arrest Judgment [69] is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
