MEMORANDUM OPINION

MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA, District Judge.

On January 3, 2020, the magistrate judge entered a report in which he recommended that the Court deny Mr. Harris's petition for writ of habeas corpus and dismiss this matter without prejudice to allow Mr. Harris to exhaust his state court remedies. (Doc. 10). Mr. Harris has objected to the report, (Doc. 14), but his objection does not address the exhaustion issue. Instead, he asks the Court to consider the merits of his claims. (Doc. 14). The magistrate judge correctly found that Mr. Harris has not unexhausted his constitutional challenge to his state criminal conviction because he has not yet presented his constitutional challenge to a state court. Consequently, for the reasons the magistrate judge stated in his report, this Court may not reach the merits of Mr. Harris's constitutional challenge to his conviction. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999) ("Before a federal court may grant habeas relief," the petitioner "must exhaust his remedies in state court."); O'Sullivan, 528 U.S. at 844 (when an individual asserts that his "continued [state] confinement . . . violate[s] federal law, the state courts should have the first opportunity to review this claim and provide any necessary relief."); McNair v. Campbell, 416 F.3d 1291, 1302 (11th Cir. 2005) ("Habeas petitioners generally cannot raise claims in federal court if those claims were not first exhausted in state court.").

Therefore, having reviewed Mr. Harris's petition (Doc. 1), the records pertaining to his state criminal proceedings (Docs. 7-1 through 7-7), the magistrate judge's report (Doc. 10), and Mr. Harris's objection (Doc. 14), the Court adopts the magistrate judge's report and accepts his recommendation. By separate order, the Court will dismiss this matter without prejudice.