Orukotan v. Secretary of Florida Department of Corrections et al

Filing 14

ORDER Affirming and Adopting 13 Report of Magistrate Judge. Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. Closing Case. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles. (lh00) 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. 16-62224-CIV-GAYLES/WHITE
OLADOTUN ORUKOTAN,
Petitioner,
v.
JULIE JONES,
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 (“Report”) [ECF No. 13]. Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 attacking his conviction and sentence entered in case number
071612-CF-10B in the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court of Broward County, Florida [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, non-dispositive matters, and for a
Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 3]. Judge White’s Report recommends that the Court deny the Petition and that no certificate of appealability be issued. Petitioner has failed to timely object to the Report.
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). 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 has reviewed the Report, the record, and the applicable law. This Court finds
no clear error with Judge White’s well-reasoned analysis and agrees that the Petition must be
denied.
Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1)

Judge White’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 13] is AFFIRMED AND
ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference;

(2)

the Petition [ECF No. 1] is DENIED;

(3)

no certificate of appealability shall issue; and

(4)

this case is CLOSED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 29th day of August, 2017.

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2