Filed: Jul. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 21, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS , District Judge . On June 22, 2015, the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 11) was entered and the parties were allowed therein fourteen (14) days in which to file objections to the recommendations made by the magistrate judge. No objections have been filed and the deadline to do so has passed. The matter is thus before the undersigned for decision. DISTRICT COURT REVIEW OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION After conducting a "careful
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS , District Judge . On June 22, 2015, the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 11) was entered and the parties were allowed therein fourteen (14) days in which to file objections to the recommendations made by the magistrate judge. No objections have been filed and the deadline to do so has passed. The matter is thus before the undersigned for decision. DISTRICT COURT REVIEW OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION After conducting a "careful ..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
VIRGINIA EMERSON HOPKINS, District Judge.
On June 22, 2015, the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 11) was entered and the parties were allowed therein fourteen (14) days in which to file objections to the recommendations made by the magistrate judge. No objections have been filed and the deadline to do so has passed. The matter is thus before the undersigned for decision.
DISTRICT COURT REVIEW OF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
After conducting a "careful and complete" review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 408 (5th Cir.1982)).1 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).
A district judge "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." Id. This requires that the district judge "give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party." Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted).
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 Fed. App'x. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).2
"Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct." United States v. Woodard, 387 F.3d 1329, 1334 (11th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). It is incumbent upon the parties to timely raise any objections that they may have regarding a magistrate judge's findings contained in a report and recommendation, as the failure to do so subsequently waives or abandons the issue, even if such matter was presented at the magistrate judge level. See, e.g., U.S. v. Pilati, 627 F.3d 1360 at 1365 (11th Cir. 2010) ("While Pilati raised the issue of not being convicted of a qualifying offense before the magistrate judge, he did not raise this issue in his appeal to the district court. Thus, this argument has been waived or abandoned by his failure to raise it on appeal to the district court.").
CONCLUSION
After careful consideration of the record in this case, and having conducted a de novo review of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the court hereby ADOPTS the report of the magistrate judge. The court further ACCEPTS the recommendations of the magistrate judge that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied.
A separate order in conformity with this Memorandum Opinion will be entered contemporaneously herewith.
