Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION FILE NO. 3:15-cr-12-TCB CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 3:19-cv-77-TCB
11-05-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. CHARLES CARROLL, Defendant.
ORDER
This case comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Regina D. Cannon's report and recommendation (the "R&R") [87], which recommends denying Defendant Charles Carroll's motion [82] to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and denying a certificate of appealability. Carroll has filed objections [90]. The objections are due to be denied as untimely, but the Court will nevertheless consider them on the merits.
A district judge has a duty to conduct a "careful and complete" review of a magistrate judge's R&R. Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 408 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982)). This review may take different forms, however, depending on whether there are objections to the R&R. The district judge must "make a de novo determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In contrast, those portions of the R&R to which no objection is made need only be reviewed for "clear error." Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (quoting Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005)).
"Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court." Nettles, 677 F.2d at 410 n.8. "This rule facilitates the opportunity for district judges to spend more time on matters actually contested and produces a result compatible with the purposes of the Magistrates Act." Id. at 410.
After conducting a complete and careful review of the R&R, the district judge "may accept, reject, or modify" the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Williams, 681 F.2d at 732. The district judge "may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Carroll's objections merely repeat the grounds for relief he put forth in his initial § 2255 motion and do not specifically respond to the R&R's findings and conclusions. Having conducted a careful and complete de novo review of the R&R, the Court finds that its factual and legal conclusions were correct and agrees with the well-reasoned recommendation of the magistrate judge. Accordingly, Carroll's objections [90] are overruled and the Court adopts as its Order the R&R [87]. Carroll's motion [82] to vacate is denied. This Court further agrees with the magistrate judge that this Court's resolution of the issues presented in the petition is not debatable by jurists of reason. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability is denied. The Clerk is directed to close the civil action.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of November, 2020.
/s/_________
Timothy C. Batten, Sr.
United States District Judge
Macort dealt only with the standard of review to be applied to a magistrate's factual findings, but the Supreme Court has indicated that there is no reason for the district court to apply a different standard to a magistrate's legal conclusions. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Thus, district courts in this circuit have routinely reviewed both legal and factual conclusions for clear error. See Tauber v. Barnhart, 438 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1373-74 (N.D. Ga. 2006) (collecting cases). This is to be contrasted with the standard of review on appeal, which distinguishes between the two. See Monroe v. Thigpen, 932 F.2d 1437, 1440 (11th Cir. 1991) (holding that when a magistrate's findings of fact are adopted by the district court without objection, they are reviewed on appeal under a "plain error standard" while questions of law always remain subject to de novo review).