Opinion
1:20-cv-20234-DPG
10-03-2022
BRIAN DERONCELER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
ORDER
DARRIN P. GAYLES, DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes' Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), [ECF No. 52], regarding Plaintiff's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (the “Motion” or “Motion to Vacate”). [ECF No. 1]. On September 17, 2020, the action was referred to Judge Otazo-Reyes, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pretrial, non-dispositive matters, and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 7]. On July 25, 2022, Judge Otazo-Reyes issued her report recommending that Plaintiff's Motion be denied. [ECF No. 52]. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report. [ECF No. 53]. For the reasons that follow, the Court affirms and adopts 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 Fed.Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
Having conducted a de novo review of the Motion, the Report, Plaintiff's objections, and the record, the Court agrees with Judge Otazo-Reyes' well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that Plaintiff's Motion should be denied.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1) Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes' Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 52], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference.
(2) Plaintiff Brian Deronceler's Motion to Vacate, [ECF No. 1], is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED