James v. United States Department of Justice et al

Filing 8

ORDER Adopting 7 Report and Recommendations. 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. 17-21052-CIV-GAYLES/WHITE

LACROIX EMMANUEL JAMES,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, et al.,
Respondents.

/

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 filed a pro se Motion for Stay of Deportation
and Motion to Re-Open and Remand [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 that the Court dismiss the motion to stay deportation for lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, if construed as a habeas petition
brought by 28 U.S.C. §2241, be dismissed as premature. 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 for lack of jurisdiction.
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; and

(3)

this case is CLOSED.

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

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2