McNeil v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

Filing 13

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING PETITION. Motions Terminated: 11 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Application/Petition (Complaint) for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Kamonte McNeil. Signed by Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II on 3/30/2021. See attached document for full details. (co)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 20-CV-60612-RAR
KAMONTE MCNEIL,
Petitioner,
v.
MARK S. INCH, Secretary, Florida
Department of Corrections,
Respondent.
________________________________________/
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING PETITION
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon United States Magistrate Judge Jared M.
Strauss’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 11] (“Report”), entered on March 4, 2021. The
Report recommends that the Court deny Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [ECF No
1] (“Petition”) under 28 U.S.C section 2254.

Petitioner timely filed objections to the Report on

March 18, 2021 [ECF No. 12] (“Objections”).
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).

Because Plaintiff timely filed

objections to the Report, the Court has conducted a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Strauss’s
legal and factual findings.

Having carefully reviewed the Petition, the Report, the Objections,

the factual record, the applicable law, and being otherwise fully advised, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report [ECF No. 11] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
2. The Petition [ECF No. 1] under 28 U.S.C section 2254 is DENIED for the reasons set
forth in the Report.

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.1
4. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
5. Any pending motions are DENIED as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, this 30th day of March, 2021.

_________________________________
RODOLFO 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 does not satisfy this burden, the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.
1

Page 2 of 2