Johnson v. United States ( 2019 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 19-cv-62046-GAYLES/REID (19-cr-60038-GAYLES) MAURICE ALFONSO JOHNSON, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. / ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Lisette Reid’s Report of Magistrate Judge (“Report”) [ECF No. 6]. On June 24, 2019, Movant Maurice Alfonso Johnson filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 1].1 The case was referred to Judge Reid for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). [ECF No. 2]. Judge Reid’s Report recommended that the Motion be dismissed as premature, no certificate of appealability be issued, and the case be closed. [ECF No. 6]. No timely objections were filed. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see 1 Judge Reid construed the Motion as Movant’s attempt to file a pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because the Motion seeks “discharge” from Movant’s criminal conviction, the Court agrees with Judge Reid’s construction. [ECF No. 1, at 4]. also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). The Court, having reviewed the record for clear error, agrees with Judge Reid’s well- reasoned analysis and findings that Movant’s claims are premature. Accordingly, itis ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Judge Reid’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 6] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference; (2) Movant’s Motion [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, except as to application of the federal statute of limitations or other procedural defenses which may apply; (3) No certificate of appealability shall be issued; (4) This action shall be CLOSED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 29th day of October, 2019. of DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DI. ICT JUDGE