PAKO
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court accepted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying the movant's claim one of his motion to vacate sentence.
Movant filed a motion to vacate his criminal conviction. The court denied claims two and three and referred claim one to a Magistrate Judge for an evi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Clear Error Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 24]
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge's Report Recommending Denial of Claim One of Motion to Vacate Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (the "Report") [ECF No. 24], issued on September 20, 2024. On January 23, 2023, Movant filed a Motion to Vacate his criminal conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 1]. On April 22, 2024, the Court denied Claims Two and Three of the Motion and referred Claim One to Magistrate Judge Shaniek M. Maynard for an evidentiary hearing [ECF No. 7]. On September 20, 2024, following the evidentiary hearing, Judge Maynard issued the instant Report recommending that Claim One of the Motion be denied [ECF No. 24]. Objections to the Report were originally due on October 4, 2024, but later extended to October 17, 2024 [ECF No. 24 p. 14; ECF Nos. 25, 26]. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 26].
To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F. 2d 815, 822
CASE NO. 23-14016-CIV-CANNON/Maynard (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App'x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
Following review, the Court finds the well-reasoned Report to contain no clear errors of fact and no errors of law. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 24] is ACCEPTED. No certificate of appealability shall issue. 2. Claim One of the Motion [ECF No. 1] is DENIED.
3. Final judgment to be entered by separate order.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 24th day of October 2024.
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marina Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815 (11th Cir. 1989)