IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL JAVON DANIEL, Reg. No. ) 64890-509, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) CIVIL CASE NO. 3:23-cv-403-ECM ) [WO] UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Michael Javon Daniel’s motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to

. (Doc. 1). On April 3, 2024, the Magistrate Judge held an evidentiary hearing on the Petitioner’s claim that his counsel failed to file a requested appeal. The Magistrate Judge appointed counsel for the Petitioner for the limited purpose of that claim. (Doc. 11). On June 5, 2024, the Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation that the Petitioner’s § 2255 motion be denied in its entirety. (Doc. 15). On June 27, 2024, the Magistrate Judge granted the Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to file objections to the Recommendation (doc. 17), and on August 8, 2024, the Petitioner filed objections to the Recommendation (doc. 18).1 After carefully reviewing the record in this case, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and the Petitioner’s objections, the Court concludes that the Petitioner’s

1 Pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s Order, the objection deadline was July 22, 2024. (Doc. 17). The Petitioner’s objections are dated July 21, 2024. (Doc. 18 at 4-5). The Court will assume without deciding that the Petitioner’s objections were timely. objections are due to be overruled, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is due to be adopted, and this case is due to be dismissed with prejudice.

When a party objects to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the district court must review the disputed portions de novo.

(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz,

(1980). The district court “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or resubmit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”

(b)(1). De novo review requires that the district court independently consider factual issues based on the record. Jeffrey S.

by Ernest S. v. State Bd. of Educ. of State of Ga.,

(11th Cir. 1990). However, objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation must be sufficiently specific in order to warrant de novo review. See LoConte v. Dugger,

(11th Cir. 1988) (“Whenever any party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by a magistrate [judge], the district court has an obligation to conduct a de

novo review of the record with respect to that factual issue.”). Otherwise, a Report and Recommendation is reviewed for clear error. The Court has carefully reviewed the Petitioner’s objections. (Doc. 18). His objections amount to little more than restatements of the allegations in his pleadings and arguments previously made to and considered by the Magistrate Judge. These objections

are reviewed for clear error and, on this record, are due to be overruled. Additionally, with respect to the Petitioner’s claim that his counsel failed to file a requested appeal, the Court observes that the Magistrate Judge determined that the Petitioner’s counsel was credible and that the Petitioner’s testimony “lack[ed] credibility in certain key respects.” (Doc. 15 at 6). This Court affords “substantial deference” to the Magistrate Judge’s credibility determinations and will not disturb them unless the Magistrate Judge’s “understanding of

the facts appears to be ‘unbelievable.’” See Rivers v. United States,

, 1316– 17 (11th Cir. 2015) (citations omitted). On this record, the Magistrate Judge’s understanding of the facts is not unbelievable. See

In sum, while the Petitioner’s objections reflect a disagreement with the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, they fail to establish any error in the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning or conclusions. Consequently, his objections are due to be overruled.

Accordingly, upon an independent review of the record, and upon consideration of the Recommendation and the Petitioner’s objections, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Petitioner’s objections (doc. 18) are OVERRULED; 2. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (doc. 15) is ADOPTED;

3. The Petitioner’s

motion (doc. 1) is DENIED; 4. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. A separate Final Judgment will be entered. DONE this 15th day of October, 2024. /s/ Emily C. Marks EMILY C. MARKS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE