Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dinnall v. Department of Corrections

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

August 2, 2019

CLINTON M. DINNALL, Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant.

          ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          BETH BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Reid (the “Report”). See ECF No. [15]. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Lisette M. Reid for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. See ECF No. [2]. On June 4, 2019, Judge Reid issued the Report recommending that the Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief, ECF No. [1] (“Petition”), be denied on the merits and that no certificate of appealability be issued. ECF No. [15], at 49. The Report advised that any objections to the Report's findings were due within fourteen days of receipt of the Report. Id.

         Plaintiff has timely filed objections to the Report. See ECF No. [18] (“Objections”). The Court has conducted a de novo review of the portions of the Report to which Petitioner has objected, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and the remainder of the Report for clear error, and finds that the Objections are without merit and are therefore overruled. Taylor v. Cardiovascular Specialists, P.C., 4 F.Supp.3d 1374, 1377 (N.D.Ga. 2014) (citing United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983)). The Court first notes that the majority of Petitioner's Objections are improper, as the objections are either further expansions of arguments originally raised in his Petition and considered by the Magistrate Judge or are merely just disagreements with the Report's findings. These objections include:

1. Petitioner's objection to the Report's finding that Claim Ten is not unexhausted and thus not procedurally barred from federal habeas review, and that the equitable exception should apply. ECF No. [18], at 2-4.
2. Petitioner's objection to the Report's finding that Claim Two is not cognizable under § 2254. Id. at 9.
3. Petitioner's objection to the Report's finding that Claim Three is not cognizable under § 2254. Id. at 10.
4. Petitioner's objection to the Report's finding that Claim Four is not cognizable under § 2254. Id. at 11.
5. Petitioner's objection to the Report's finding that Claim Five is not cognizable under § 2254. Id. at 12.
6. Petitioner's objection to the Report's finding that Claim Six is not cognizable under § 2254. Id. at 10.
7. Petitioner's objection to the Report's finding that Claim Seven is not cognizable under § 2254. Id. at 10.
8. Petitioner's objection to the Report's finding that Claim Eight is not cognizable under § 2254. Id. at 11.
9. Petitioner's objection to the Report's finding that Claim Nine is not cognizable under § 2254. Id. at13.
10. Petitioner's objection to the Report's finding that Claim Ten is not cognizable under § 2254. Id. at13.
11. Petitioner objection to the Report's finding that Claim Eleven is not cognizable under ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.