Stallworth v. State of Florida Department of Corrections et al

Filing 10

ORDER Adopting 7 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. 17-20082-CIV-GAYLES/WHITE

CHARLES E. STALLWORTH,
Petitioner,
v.
JULIE L. 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. 7]. Petitioner Charles E. Stallworth filed a “Petition for Relief from Judgment Order Issued: On December 20, 2004,” which the court construes as a Section
2254 Petition [ECF No. 1] (“Petition”). 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 (1) that the Court dismiss the Petition as successive and
(2) that a certificate of appealability be denied. 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).
This Court finds no clear error with Judge White’s well-reasoned analysis and agrees
that Petitioner’s claims must be dismissed as successive. 1
Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1)

Judge White’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 7] is AFFIRMED AND
ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference;

(2)

the Petition [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED;

(3)

no certificate of appealability shall issue; and

(4)

this case is CLOSED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 30th day of March, 2017.

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

The Court notes that the Report contains a typographical error in listing the case number for Petitioner’s
prior § 2254 action. The correct case number is 09-cv-20381-PAS.
2