UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 1:22-cv-23567-KMM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MIGUEL MENDEZ REVILLA,

Defendant. /

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon United State Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 11). On November 8, 2022, this Court referred pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge Louis. See ECF No. 5. Thereafter, the Parties jointly moved for a Consent Judgment (“Motion”) (ECF No. 10). On January 24, 2023, Magistrate Judge Louis issued the R&R, recommending that the Motion be GRANTED. R&R at 3. No objections to the R&R were filed, and the time to do so has now passed. The matter is now ripe for review. As set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by a magistrate judge.

(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). The Court “must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). A de novo review is therefore required if a party files “a proper, specific objection” to a factual finding contained in the report. Macort v. Prem, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2006). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report” to warrant de novo review.

Yet when a party has failed to object or has not properly objected to the magistrate judge’s findings, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See Keaton v. United States, No. 14-21230-CIV,

, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015); see also Lopez v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-24263,

, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2019) (stating that a district judge “evaluate[s] portions of the R & R not objected to under a clearly erroneous standard of review” (citing Davis v. Apfel,

(M.D. Fla. 2000))). In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Louis recommends granting the Motion. R&R at 1. Namely, Magistrate Judge Louis states that Defendant, who has been advised by counsel, “admitted that he illegally procured his naturalization, as described in Count II of the Complaint.”

The R&R further states that the Motion represents that Defendant agrees denaturalization is proper.

The Court agrees. Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the R&R, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND

ADJUDGED that: 1. Magistrate Judge Louis’s R&R (ECF No. 11) is ADOPTED; 2. The Parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment Revoking Naturalization (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED; 3. Judgment is ENTERED in favor of Plaintiff United States of America, and against Defendant Miguel Mendez Revilla, as to Count II of the Complaint; 4. The remaining counts in the Complaint are DISMISSED; 5. This Court FINDS and DECLARES that Defendant illegally procured his United States citizenship; 6. The order admitting Defendant to United States citizenship, effective as of the original date of that order, March 29, 2013, is REVOKED and SET ASIDE; 7. The Certificate of Naturalization No. 35861802 is CANCELED, effective as of the original date of the certificate, March 29, 2013; 8. Defendant is forever RESTRAINED and ENJOINED from claiming any rights, privileges, benefits, or advantages under any document which evidences United States citizenship obtained as a result of his March 29, 2013, naturalization; 9. Defendant shall, within fourteen (14) days of this Order, surrender and deliver his Certificate of Naturalization, any and all United States passports and passport cards, and any other indicia of United States citizenship, as well as any copies thereof in his possession or control (and make good faith efforts to recover and then surrender any copies thereof that he knows are in the possession or control of others), to Counsel for the United States, Bradley M. Brinkman; and 10. The Parties shall appear for a compliance hearing before Magistrate Judge Louis, at which Defendant must demonstrate that he has complied with a judgment entered by the District Court, unless the United States provides notice that Defendant has fully complied and that judgment is satisfied. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 27.7 day of February 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE c: All counsel of record