ORDER

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, District Judge.

This case is before the Court on Petitioner Zacchaeus Crawford's "Objections to the Magistrate's Report and Request for De Novo Review by the District Court." (Doc. 26, Objections). Crawford seems to object to the Magistrate Judge's order of January 14, 2016 (Doc. 20), which denied Crawford's second motion to expand the record (Doc. 17), as well as the Magistrate Judge's order of February 25, 2016 (Doc. 25), which denied Crawford's motion for reconsideration (Doc. 23). Crawford sought to expand the record with affidavits from three family members, all of which were signed and executed in November 2015. (See Doc. 17, Ex. 1, Ex. 2, Ex. 3). The affidavits purport to describe the conduct of law enforcement on the day agents executed a search warrant at Crawford's home, which led to the seizure of computers containing hundreds of images and videos of child pornography. Although Crawford waived the right to challenge the manner in which police obtained the evidence against him (Crim. Doc. 32, Plea Transcript at 7-8), and although Crawford insisted at his sentencing hearing that he "freely" cooperated with law enforcement (Crim. Doc. 29, Sentencing Transcript at 30), Crawford now attempts to submit affidavits describing police officers as "raid[ing]" his house in the early morning, "screaming" and "thrusting guns" to intimidate the residents, and aiming guns at a baby lying in a crib. (E.g., Doc. 17, Ex. 1).

The Magistrate Judge's January 14, 2016, and February 25, 2016, orders do not dispose of any claims or defenses. See Smith v. Sch. Bd. of Orange Cnty., 487 F.3d 1361, 1365 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). As such, to prevail in his Objection, Crawford must establish that the conclusions to which he objects in the Order are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also Merritt v. Int'l Bhd. of Boilermakers, 649 F.2d 1013, 1016-17 (5th Cir. Unit A June 1981);1 Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Fla. Dep't of Corrs., 122 F.Supp.2d 1335, 1337 (M.D. Fla. 2000); Williams v. Wright, No. 3:09-cv-55, 2009 WL 4891825, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 16, 2009) ("A district court reviewing a magistrate judge's decision on a nondispositive issue `must consider . . . objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.'") (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)).2 "Clear error is a highly deferential standard of review." Holton v. City of Thomasville Sch. Dist., 425 F.3d 1325, 1350 (11th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). "[A] finding is `clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Id. (citations and quotations omitted); see also Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997) ("The clear error standard [under Rule 72(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)] means that the district court can overturn the magistrate judge's ruling only if the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made."). A magistrate judge's order "is contrary to law `when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.'" Botta v. Barnhart, 475 F.Supp.2d 174, 185 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (quoting Catskill Dev., LLC v. Park Place Entm't Corp., 206 F.R.D. 78, 86 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)); see also Pigott v. Sanibel Dev., LLC, Civil Action No. 07-0083-WS-C, 2008 WL 2937804, at *5 (S.D. Ala. July 23, 2008) (similar) (citation omitted); Schaaf v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., Civil Action No. 1:04-cv-2346-GET, 2008 WL 489010, at *3 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 20, 2008) (similar) (citation omitted).3 Moreover, a magistrate judge is afforded broad discretion in issuing non-dispositive pretrial orders related to discovery such as the December 7, 2015 Order. See Tracy P. v. Sarasota Cnty., No. 8:05-CV-927-T-26EAJ, 2007 WL 1364381, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 9, 2007); see also Rule 6.01(c)(18), Local Rules, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida (Local Rule authorizing magistrate judges to supervise and determine pretrial proceedings and motions in civil cases, including discovery motions).

After thorough review of the Magistrate Judge's January 14, 2016, and February 25, 2016, orders, Crawford's Objections, and the relevant records, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's orders were neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Rule 7 of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings allows a party to expand the record with "letters predating the filing of the motion," Rule 7(b), Fed. R. § 2255 Proceedings, but the instant letters clearly post-date the filing of Crawford's Motion to Vacate. To the extent the letters are affidavits under Rule 7(b), the Magistrate Judge did not clearly err in determining that Crawford failed to explain how these affidavits were relevant to the Motion to Vacate. Therefore, the Court does not find that the Magistrate Judge clearly erred or rendered a decision that was contrary to law.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED:

Petitioner Zacchaeus Crawford's "Objections to the Magistrate's Report and Request for De Novo Review by the District Court" (Doc. 26, Objections) are OVERRULED.

DONE AND ORDERED.