Davis v. Florida Department of Corrections ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 19-CV-62779-RAR RALSTON G. DAVIS, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. ________________________________________/ ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS UNDER 28 U.S.C. SECTION 2254 THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon United States Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 21] (“Report”) on Petitioner Ralston G. Davis’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody [ECF No. 1] and Memorandum of Law in Support of Petition Filed Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 [ECF No. 1-2] (collectively, the “Petition”). The Report recommends that the Petition be denied and that no certificate of appealability be issued. Report at 52. Petitioner objects to the Report’s conclusions on all claims. See [ECF No. 22-1] (“Objections”) at 1. When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts must review the disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). Accordingly, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the entire Report in accordance with 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(C). See Diaz v. United States, No. 16-24126-CIV, 2018 WL 10150910, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 30, 2018) (“Because Movant has filed objections, the Court reviews the Report de novo[.]”) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Having carefully reviewed the Petition, the State’s Response [ECF No. 13], the Petitioner’s Reply [ECF No. 19], the Report, the Objections, and the factual record, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report [ECF No. 21] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. Davis’s Petition [ECF No. 1] under 28 U.S.C. section 2254 is DENIED. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.' The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 8th day of March, 2022. bre A. RUIZ II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ' A certificate of appealability “may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Because Petitioner Davis does not satisfy this burden, the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. Page 2 of 2