TOBIN
v.
DIXON
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.
Matthew Tobin sought federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state conviction. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, dismissing the petition as untimely and denying a certificate of appealability.
The petition is dismissed as untimely. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and denied Tobin's certificate of appealability.
“Because the appeal was of a nonfinal order, it does not deprive this court of jurisdiction.”
Establishes that the pendency of Tobin's Eleventh Circuit appeal did not strip the district court of authority to proceed with the § 2254 petition.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMatthew Tobin filed a § 2254 habeas petition in the District Court for the Northern District of Florida. A magistrate judge issued a report and recomm…
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 Non-Final Order cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner Matthew Tobin sought § 2254 relief here. The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation, concluding the court should dismiss the petition as untimely. ECF No. 12. Although Tobin did not file any objections, he did appeal the report and recommendation to the Eleventh Circuit. ECF No. 14. That appeal remains pending. Because the appeal was of a nonfinal order, it does not deprive this court of jurisdiction. See Stansell v. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, 120 F. 4th 754, 763 (11th Cir. 2024). Tobin sent the Eleventh Circuit a memorandum and an "addendum to appeal.” ECF No. 17. The Eleventh Circuit forwarded those documents here, and I have considered their contents as objections to the report and recommendation.
Having carefully considered the report and recommendation, and having considered de novo the issues raised in Tobin's filing (ECF No. 17), I now adopt the
1
report and recommendation and incorporate it into this order. The petition is untimely, and it will be dismissed.
The clerk will enter a judgment that says, "The § 2254 petition is dismissed as untimely." A certificate of appealability is DENIED. The clerk will close the file.
SO ORDERED on January 22, 2025.
s/ Allen Winsor United States District Judge
2