Marshall v FCI Miami

Filing 21

ORDER Adopting 20 Report and Recommendations. Certificate of Appealability: No Ruling. Closing Case. Motions Terminated: 20 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS on 28 USC 2241 case re 1 Judge Assignment Recommending dismissing as moot.. Sign ed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles on 10/31/2014. (hs01) 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
MIAMI DIVISION
CASE NO. 13-24173-CIV-GAYLES/WHITE
MAURICE D. MARSHALL,
Petitioner,
vs.
W.T. TAYLOR, WARDEN,
Respondent.
___________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White’s Report of
Magistrate Judge (“Report”) [ECF No. 20], entered on October 10, 2014. On November 18,
2013, Petitioner, Maurice D. Marshall (“Marshall”), filed a pro se Petition under 28 U.S.C.
section 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a person in state custody (“Petition”) [ECF No. 1].
The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White pursuant to Administrative Order
2003-19 for a ruling on all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters and for a Report and
Recommendation on any dispositive matters. (See [ECF No. 3]).
Upon reviewing Marshall’s Petition, Judge White issued the Report recommending the
petition should be dismissed as moot because the Bureau of Prisons reversed its disciplinary
action and Marshall has received all of the relief he requested. To date, no objections have been
filed.
When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has properly been objected to, district courts
must review the disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). When no party has timely
objected, however, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the

record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory committee’s notes
(citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court
has acknowledged Congress’s intent was to only require a de novo review where objections have
been properly filed, not when neither party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150
(1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate
[judge]’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party
objects to those findings.”). In any event, the “[f]ailure to object to the magistrate [judge]’s
factual findings after notice precludes a later attack on these findings.” Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d
736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988) (citing Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 (5th Cir. 1982)).
The undersigned has reviewed the Report, the record, and the applicable law to assure
that no clear error appears on the face of the record. In the light of that review, the undersigned
agrees with the analysis and recommendations stated in Judge White’s Report, and agrees with
Judge White’s conclusion that the petition be dismissed as moot. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report [ECF No. 20] is AFFIRMED AND
ADOPTED as follows:
1.

Maurice D. Marshall’s Petition [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED as MOOT.

2.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case, and all pending motions
are DENIED as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 31st day of October,
2014.

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE