Pako v. United States of America
Filing
27
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 24] re 1 Motion (Complaint) to Vacate/Set Aside/Correct Sentence (2255) filed by Garrett Michael Pako ; Adopting 24 Report and Recommendations on 24 Report and Recomm endations, denying 1 Motion (Complaint) to Vacate/Set Aside/Correct Sentence (2255) filed by Garrett Michael Pako. Certificate of Appealability: DENIED Signed by Judge Aileen M. Cannon on 10/24/2024. See attached document for full details. (pcs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT PIERCE DIVISION
CASE NO. 23-14016-CIV-CANNON/Maynard
(CASE NO. 21-14021-CR-CANNON/Maynard)
GARRETT MICHAEL PAKO,
Movant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
________________________________/
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 24]
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report
Recommending Denial of Claim One of Motion to Vacate Sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (the
“Report”) [ECF No. 24], issued on September 20, 2024. On January 23, 2023, Movant filed a
Motion to Vacate his criminal conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 1]. On
April 22, 2024, the Court denied Claims Two and Three of the Motion and referred Claim One to
Magistrate Judge Shaniek M. Maynard for an evidentiary hearing [ECF No. 7]. On September 20,
2024, following the evidentiary hearing, Judge Maynard issued the instant Report recommending
that Claim One of the Motion be denied [ECF No. 24]. Objections to the Report were originally
due on October 4, 2024, but later extended to October 17, 2024 [ECF No. 24 p. 14; ECF Nos. 25,
26]. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 26].
To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file
specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation
to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822
CASE NO. 23-14016-CIV-CANNON/Maynard
(11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court
reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject,
or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report,
the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the
record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence
of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston
v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
Following review, the Court finds the well-reasoned Report to contain no clear errors of
fact and no errors of law. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.
The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 24] is ACCEPTED. No certificate of
appealability shall issue.
2.
Claim One of the Motion [ECF No. 1] is DENIED.
3.
Final judgment to be entered by separate order.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 24th day of October
2024.
_________________________________
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc:
counsel of record
2
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?