Oquendo v. Florida Department of Corrections et al

Filing 16

ORDER adopting 12 Report and Recommendations; dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Certificate of Appealability: DENIED. Closing Case. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles on 3/24/2017. (zvr) NOTICE: If there are sealed documents in this case, they may be unsealed after 1 year or as directed by Court Order, unless they have been designated to be permanently sealed. See Local Rule 5.4 and Administrative Order 2014-69.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 16-cv-60656-GAYLES/WHITE
JOEL OQUENDO,
Petitioner,
v.
JULIE JONES, Secretary, Florida
Department of Corrections,
Respondent.
/
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White’s Report of
Magistrate Judge (the “Report”) [ECF No. 12], entered on February 1, 2017.
Petitioner Joel Oquendo, who appears in this action pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on March 29, 2016 [ECF No. 1]. The matter was
referred to Judge White, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Administrative Order 2003-19
of this Court, for a ruling on all pretrial, nondispositive matters, and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters [ECF No. 3]. The Report recommends that the Petition be
dismissed as time barred and that no certificate of appealability issue. The Petitioner timely filed
Objections to the Report [ECF No. 15].
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 also
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). If no objections are filed, or if the objections do not properly address
specific findings, the district court need only review the report and recommendation for “clear

error.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam); see also Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note.
Given that none of the Petitioner’s Objections addresses Judge White’s conclusion that the
Petition be dismissed as time barred, the Court has undertaken the required review and finds no
clear error in the well-reasoned analysis and recommendations contained in the Report regarding
the untimeliness of the Petition and the issuance of a certificate of appealability.
It is, therefore, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1)

the Report of Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 12] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED
and incorporated into this Order by reference;

(2)

the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE; and

(3)

no certificate of appealability shall issue.

This action is CLOSED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 24th day of March, 2017.

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE