Filed: Mar. 06, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 06, 2019
Summary: ORDER HABEAS CORPUS 28 U.S.C. 2255 TIMOTHY C. BATTEN, SR. , District Judge . This case comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman's final report and recommendation (the "R&R") [146], 1 which recommends denying Movant Ephren Taylor's motion [87] under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence and denying a certificate of appealability. Taylor has filed objections [151] to the R&R. A district judge has a duty to conduct a "careful and comple
Summary: ORDER HABEAS CORPUS 28 U.S.C. 2255 TIMOTHY C. BATTEN, SR. , District Judge . This case comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman's final report and recommendation (the "R&R") [146], 1 which recommends denying Movant Ephren Taylor's motion [87] under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence and denying a certificate of appealability. Taylor has filed objections [151] to the R&R. A district judge has a duty to conduct a "careful and complet..
More
ORDER
HABEAS CORPUS 28 U.S.C. § 2255
TIMOTHY C. BATTEN, SR., District Judge.
This case comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman's final report and recommendation (the "R&R") [146],1 which recommends denying Movant Ephren Taylor's motion [87] under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence and denying a certificate of appealability. Taylor has filed objections [151] to the R&R.
A district judge has a duty to conduct a "careful and complete" review of a magistrate judge's R&R. Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 408 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982)). This review may take different forms, however, depending on whether there are objections to the R&R. The district judge must "make a de novo determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In contrast, those portions of the R&R to which no objection is made need only be reviewed for "clear error." Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (quoting Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005)).2
"Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court." Nettles, 677 F.2d at 410 n.8. "This rule facilitates the opportunity for district judges to spend more time on matters actually contested and produces a result compatible with the purposes of the Magistrates Act." Id. at 410.
After conducting a complete and careful review of the R&R, the district judge "may accept, reject, or modify" the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Williams, 681 F.2d at 732. The district judge "may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
The Court has conducted a careful and complete de novo review of the R&R and finds that its factual and legal conclusions were correct. Accordingly, Taylor's objections [151] are overruled and the Court adopts as its Order the R&R [146]. Taylor's motion [87] to vacate is denied and a certificate of appealability is denied. The Clerk is directed to close the civil action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
