UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 19-cv-22818-GAYLES/REID

ANTONIO DAMARCUS WOODSON,

Petitioner,

v.

MARK S. INCH,

Respondent. _________________________________________/

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid’s Report Regarding Dismissal for Failure to Obtain Authorization Pursuant to

(b)(3) (the “Report”). [ECF No. 6]. On July 9, 2019, Petitioner Antonio Damarcus Woodson, filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

, challenging the constitutionality of his convictions and sentences following jury trials in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, and the First Judicial Circuit in and for Santa Rosa County, Florida (the “Petition”). [ECF No. 1]. The action was referred to Magistrate Judge Reid, pursuant to

(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pretrial, non-dispositive matters, and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 2]. On July 9, 2019, Petitioner moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. [ECF No. 3]. On November 26, 2019, Judge Reid issued her Report, recommending that the Court dismiss the Petition for lack of jurisdiction. [ECF No. 6]. Petitioner filed timely objections (“Objections”). [ECF No. 7]. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz,

(11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C.,

(M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2006).

Having conducted a de novo review of the record, the Court agrees with Judge Reid’s well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that the Petition shall be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In his Objections, Petitioner argues that Judge Reid misconstrued his Rule 60(b) motion as a habeas petition under

. Petitioner’s filing is properly construed under § 2254 because Petitioner asserts a “federal basis for relief from a state court’s judgment of conviction.” Gonzalez v. Crosby,

(2005). Specifically, Petitioner states that he brings “constitutional challenges” that “establish the invalidity [] of [his] convictions.” [ECF No. 1 at 1]. Petitioner may not use “Rule 60(b) to present new claims for relief from a state court’s judgment of conviction” because doing so would “circumvent[] AEDPA’s requirement that a new claim be dismissed unless

it relies on either a new rule of constitutional law or newly discovered facts.” Gonzalez,

(citation omitted). Because Petitioner impermissibly brings successive habeas claims that have already been adjudicated on the merits in a prior application, the Court must dismiss such claims for lack of jurisdiction under

(b)(1). Petitioner also argues that even if the Court dismisses his Petition under § 2244, he is still entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief. [ECF No. 7 at 3]. But Petitioner’s request for such relief “may only be obtained in federal court through the filing of a petition for habeas corpus,” and “[t]he law is clear that one may not seek monetary damages or injunctive relief which would collaterally undermine a criminal conviction or sentence.” Kendricks v. Bowden, No. 4:18CV19- MW/CAS,

, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 31, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, No. 4:18CV19-MW/CAS,

(N.D. Fla. Dec. 10, 2018), appeal dismissed, No. 19-10144-H,

(11th Cir. Apr. 12, 2019). Accordingly, the Court denies Petitioner’s request. Finally, the Court agrees with Judge Reid’s denial of a certificate of appealability, finding that Petitioner has not “made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2). Keeping in mind that the purpose of such certificates is “to separate out those appeals that deserve more careful attention from the ones that do not[,]” the Court does not find that “reasonable jurists could debate whether [] the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Gonzalez v. Sec’y for Dep’t of Corr.,

(11th Cir. 2004), aff'd on other grounds sub nom., Gonzalez,

(citation and internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Judge Reid’s Report [ECF No. 6] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference; (2) Petitioner’s Petition [ECF No. 1] shall be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction; (3) A certificate of appealability shall be DENIED; (4) All pending motions shall be DENIED AS MOOT; and (5) The case shall be CLOSED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 19th day of February, 2020. Df

UNITED STATES DIST JUDGE