Crosdale v. United States of America
ORDER Adopting 21 Report and Recommendations. Certificate of Appealability: DENIED. Closing Case. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles (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
CASE NO. 16-23311-CIV-GAYLES/WHITE
PAMELA ELAINE CROSDALE,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
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. 21]. Movant filed a pro se motion to vacate pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §2255 attacking the constitutionality of her sentence for importing into the United States a
detectable amount of cocaine, entered following a guilty plea (the “Motion”) [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 dismiss the motion as time-barred and/or alternatively deny the motion on the merits.
Movant has failed to timely object to the Report. The Court notes, however, that the Clerk has
been unable to locate a current address for Movant. Therefore, it is unlikely that Movant received a copy of 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).
Because it is unclear whether Movant received a copy of the Report, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Motion to Vacate. 1 Based on its de novo review, this Court
agrees with Judge White’s well-reasoned analysis and agrees that the Motion must be dismissed
as time-barred. The Court also concurs with Judge White’s finding that, had the Motion been
timely, it would still be denied on the merits. Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
Judge White’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 21] is AFFIRMED AND
ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference;
the Motion [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED as time-barred.
no certificate of appealability shall issue; and
this case is CLOSED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 30th day of October, 2017.
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
If Movant receives a copy of the Report, she may file objections, which will be construed as a motion for
reconsideration, within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the Report.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?