Jackson v. McConnell et al

Filing 8

ORDER. The Petition DE# 1 is DENIED. The R&R DE# 7 is ADOPTED in full. Certificate of Appealability: DENIED. Jacksons request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case. All other pending motions are DENIED as moot. All pending deadlines and hearings are TERMINATED. Signed by Judge Roy K. Altman on 9/28/2020. See attached document for full details. (ebz)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 20-81113-CIV-ALTMAN/Reid
JARVIS JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTOPHER MCCONNELL, et al,
Defendants.
_______________________/
ORDER
On July 2, 2020, the pro se Plaintiff, Jarvis Jackson (“Jackson”), filed a petition for writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, claiming that he was being held in violation of the U.S.
Constitution. See Petition [ECF No. 1]. On September 4, 2020, U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisette M.
Reid issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report” or “R&R”) [ECF No. 7], in which she
suggested that Jackson’s petition be dismissed as time-barred. See R&R at 14. In that Report,
Magistrate Judge Reid warned Jackson that “[o]bjections to this report may be filed with the
District Court Judge within fourteen days of receipt of a copy of the report. Failure to do so will
bar a de novo determination by the District Court Judge of anything in the recommendation and
will bar an attack, on appeal, of the factual findings of the Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).” Id. As of this writing, no objections to
the Report have been filed—and the time for objecting has passed.
When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts must
review that disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). But when no party has timely objected,
“the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to
accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory committee’s notes (citation omitted).

Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged
that Congress’s intent was to require de novo review only when objections have been properly
filed—and not when neither party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does
not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge]’s factual
or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those
findings.”). In any event, the “[f]ailure to object to the magistrate [judge]’s factual findings after
notice precludes a later attack on these findings.” Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir.
1988) (citing Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 (5th Cir. 1982)).
The Court has reviewed the Report, the Complaint, the record, and the applicable law and
finds no clear error in the Report. Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS AND ADJUDGES
1. The Petition [ECF No. 1] is DENIED.
2. The R&R [ECF No. 7] is ADOPTED in full.
3. Jackson’s request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
4. Jackson’s request for an evidentiary hearing is DENIED.
5. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.
6. All other pending motions are DENIED as moot.
7. All pending deadlines and hearings are TERMINATED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 28th day of September 2020.

_________________________________
ROY K. ALTMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc:

Jarvis Jackson, pro se

2