HAMILTON
v.
SECRETARY FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
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 Petitioner's Section 2254 Habeas Petition and denying a certificate of appealability.
Petitioner filed a Section 2254 Habeas Petition. A Magistrate Judge recommended denial without an evidentiary hearing or certificate of appealability.…
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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Petitioner’s Section 2254 Habeas Petition [ECF No. 1].
On July 17, 2023, following a referral order [ECF No. 5], Magistrate Judge McCabe issued a Report recommending that the Petition be denied without an evidentiary hearing and without a certificate of appealability [ECF No. 11].
Pursuant to Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties had until August1, 2023, to file objections to the Report,1 and the Report explicitly warned the parties of the consequences of failing to object. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; 11th Cir. R. 3-1. No party filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has expired. Seeing no clear error in the report, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 11] is ACCEPTED.
2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 [ECF No. 1] is DENIED.
3. Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED. 4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), NO CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHALL ISSUE because Petitioner has not shown that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of denial of a constitutional right.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-84 (2000).
5. The Clerk of the Court SHALL CLOSE this case.
6. Final Judgment to follow.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 4th day of August 2023. iy M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ce: counsel of record