Barroso v. United States of America

Filing 10

ORDER Adopting 9 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. 17-20980-CIV-GAYLES/WHITE
ALEXANDER BARROSO,
Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
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. 9]. Petitioner filed a pro se motion to vacate pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §2255 attacking the constitutionality of his conviction and sentence 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 (1) deny the Motion on the merits; (2)
deny Movant’s request for appointment of counsel; (3) not issue a certificate of appealability; and
(4) close this case. 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 the Motion must be denied on the merits.
Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1)

Judge White’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 9] is AFFIRMED AND
ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference;

(2)

the Motion [ECF No. 1] is DENIED;

(3)

Movant’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED;

(4)

no certificate of appealability shall issue; and

(5)

this case is CLOSED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 28th day of June, 2017.

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2