Opinion
Civil Action No. 18-21368-Civ-Scola
08-15-2018
Jean Oscar, Movant, v. United States of America, Respondent.
Order Denying Plaintiff's Counter-Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations for § 2255 Motion , and Motion for Reconsideration
Plaintiff, an inmate at Allenwood Federal Correction Complex, brought this action on April 6, 2018, filing a motion to vacate his prison sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF Nos. 1, 5, 9.) The motion to vacate was subsequently referred to Magistrate Judge White for a report and recommendations ("R&R"). (ECF No. 2.) On July 9, 2018, Magistrate White issued an R&R recommending the motion to vacate be denied. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff received a copy of the R&R on July 16, 2018 and timely filed multiple objections to same. (See ECF Nos. 20, 21, 22, 24.) On July 31, 2018, the Court overruled Plaintiff's objections, affirmed and adopted the R&R in full, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and closed the case. (ECF No. 25.) Plaintiff then proceeded to file a "Counter Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations for § 2255 Motion" ("Fifth Objection," ECF No. 27), as well as a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's order adopting the R&R. ("Motion for Reconsideration," ECF No. 28.) For the following reasons, the Fifth Objection and Motion for Reconsideration are denied.
Litigants that wish to object to an R&R must do so "within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof." S.D. Fla. Mag. J.R. 4(b); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (same); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (same). Untimely and duplicitous objections are subject to denial. See Lustig v. Stone, No. 15-20150, 2015 WL 13326383, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2015) (Lenard, J.) (denying leave to file untimely objections where party had "already filed objections" and "cited no authority holding that a party is permitted to file multiple Objections to an R&R"); Marin v. Alvarez, Armas & Borron, P.A., No. 08-60821, 2010 WL 338839, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2010) (Martinez, J.) ("And, although Plaintiffs' counsel filed a supplemental objection, it was filed long after the time for objections had passed without providing a reason for the delay").
The Fifth Objection is denied as untimely, duplicitous and moot. Plaintiff received the R&R on July 16, 2018, meaning any objections were due by July 30, 2018. Plaintiff's first four objections were timely. (See ECF Nos. 20-22, 24.) But the Fifth Objection was not, having been mailed on August 6, 2018—seven days too late. Further, Plaintiff "cite[s] no authority holding that a party is permitted to file multiple Objections to an R&R." Lustig, 2015 WL 13326383 at *2. Finally, the Fifth Objection is moot by virtue of the Court's adoption in full of the R&R to which Plaintiff objects.
The Motion for Reconsideration raises arguments not presented in the operative motion to vacate. (Compare ECF No. 20 with ECF No. 9.) "A 'motion for reconsideration cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment. This prohibition includes new arguments that were previously available, but not pressed.'" Lopez v. City of West Miami, 662 F. App'x 733, 737-38 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2009)). The Court declines to consider Plaintiff's new arguments raised in his Motion for Reconsideration. Id.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Fifth Objection (ECF No. 27) and Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 28) are denied, and the Court directs the Clerk of the Court to close the case.
Done and ordered at Miami, Florida, on August 15, 2018.
/s/_________
Robert N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge