Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION FILE NO. 1:15-cr-318-TCB CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:16-cv-4386-TCB
07-12-2018
DEANTIONNE M. WOLFE, Federal Reg. No. 67142-019, Movant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
ORDER
This case comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand's final report and recommendation (the "R&R") [40], which recommends granting the Government's motion to dismiss [37], denying Wolfe's motion to vacate [38] and denying a certificate of appealability. No objections have been filed.
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)).
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).
The Court has conducted a careful and complete review of the R&R and finds no clear error in its factual or legal conclusions. Accordingly, the Court adopts as its Order the R&R [40]. The Government's motion [37] to dismiss is granted, Wolfe's motion [33] to vacate is denied, and a certificate of appealability is denied. The Clerk is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of July, 2018.
/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).