IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION TRAVIS C. MOSELY, # 225852, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACT. NO. 2:17-cv-418-ECM ) (WO) DEWAYNE ESTES, WARDEN, et al., ) ) Respondents. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Now pending before the court is the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that the petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

be denied and this case be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 35). On May 8, 2020, the Petitioner filed objections to the Recommendation. (Doc. 39). The Court has carefully reviewed the record in this case, including the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and the Petitioner’s objections. When a party objects to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the district court must review the disputed portions de novo.

(b)(1). The district court “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or resubmit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review requires that the district court independently consider factual issues based on the record. Jeffrey S. ex rel. Ernest S. v. State Bd. of Educ.,

(11th Cir. 1990). See also United States v. Gopie,

, 499 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009). However, objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation must be sufficiently specific in order to warrant de novo review. See Macort v. Prem, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2006). Otherwise, a Report and Recommendation is reviewed for clear error.

In his objections, the Petitioner simply objects to the Report and Recommendation without any specificity and without stating the bases for his objections. See Doc. 39. Consequently, the Petitioner’s objections are reviewed for clear error, and the Court finds that they are due to be overruled. The well-reasoned Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge effectively address all of the Petitioner’s claims. Accordingly, upon an independent

review of the file in this case, and for good cause, it is ORDERED as follows that: 1. the Petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED; 2. the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (doc. 35) is ADOPTED; 3. the petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

is denied;

and 4. this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. A final judgment will be entered. DONE this 28th day of May, 2020.

/s/ Emily C. Marks EMILY C. MARKS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE