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.

Lucas v. Inch

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

October 8, 2019

ERIC LUCAS, Petitioner,
v.
MARK S. INCH, Respondent.

          ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          BETH BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendations of the Honorable Lisette M. Reid. ECF No. [36] (“Report”). On July 23, 2019, Judge Reid issued the Report recommending that the Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief, ECF No. [10] (“Petition”), [1] be denied on the merits, final judgment be entered in favor of Respondent, and that a certificate of appealability be denied and the case be closed. ECF No. [36] at 60. 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. ECF No. [39] (“Objections”). This 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 most of Petitioner's Objections are improper, as they are either further expansions of arguments originally raised in the Petition and considered by the Magistrate Judge or are merely disagreements with the Report's findings. These objections include:

1. Petitioner's Objection to the Report's finding that an evidentiary hearing was unwarranted. ECF No. [39] at 2-3.
2. Petitioner's objection to the Report's finding that Claim One is without merit. Id. at 4-23.
3. Petitioner's objection to the Report's finding that Claim Two is without merit. Id. at 24-25.
4. Petitioner's objection to the Report's finding that Claim Three is without merit. Id. at 25-27.
5. Petitioner's objection to the Report's finding that Claim Four is without merit. Id. at 27-33.
6. Petitioner's objection to the Report's finding that Claim Five is without merit. Id. at 33-34.
7. Petitioner's objection to the Report's finding that Claim Six is without merit. Id. at 27-33.
8. Petitioner's objection to the Report's finding that Claim Seven is without merit. Id. at 34-43.
9. Petitioner's objection to the Report's finding that Claim Eight is without merit. Id. at 43-52.
10. Petitioner's objection to the Report's finding that Claim Nine is without merit. Id. at 34-43.

         Upon review, these objections merely expand upon and reframe arguments already made and considered by the Magistrate Judge in her Report, or simply disagree with the Report's conclusions. “It is improper for an objecting party to . . . submit [] papers to a district court which are nothing more than a rehashing of the same arguments and positions taken in the original papers submitted to the Magistrate Judge. Parties are not to be afforded a ‘second bite at the apple' when they file objections to a [Report and Recommendations].” Marlite, Inc. v. Eckenrod, No. 10-23641-CIV, 2012 WL 3614212, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2012) ...


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.