UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

CASE NO. 20-61958-CIV-CANNON/Hunt

JORGE CASTILLO,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARK S. INCH, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections,

Defendant. _________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) issued by Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt on August 24, 2023 [ECF No. 15]. The Report recommends the following: denial of Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the “Petition”) filed pursuant to

on all grounds [ECF No. 1]; denial of Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing [ECF No. 1 pp. 24, 30, 37, 40]; and no issuance of a certificate of appealability [ECF No. 15 p. 16]. Petitioner filed timely objections to the Report and requested an evidentiary hearing [ECF No. 16]. 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 objections are 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 objections are made are reviewed only for clear error. See Thomas v. Arn,

(1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”); Macort v. Prem, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2006) (“Most circuits agree that in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record

in order to accept the recommendation.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The Court has reviewed the Petition [ECF No. 1], the Response [ECF No. 11], Petitioner’s Reply [ECF No. 14], the Report [ECF No. 15], Petitioner’s Objections to the Report [ECF No. 16], and the full record. After careful review, including de novo review of Petitioner’s objections [ECF No. 16], the Court finds them to lack merit and adopts the well-reasoned Report. Petitioner has failed to make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” sufficient to support the issuance of a certificate of appealability. See Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report [ECF No. 15] is ACCEPTED. 2. The Petition [ECF No. 1] is DENIED. 3. Petitioner’s requests for an evidentiary hearing [ECF No. 1 pp. 24, 30, 37, 40; ECF No. 16 pp. 4, 9] are DENIED. 4. No certificate of appealability shall issue. 5. Final judgment to issue by separate order. 6. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. CASE NO. 20-61958-CIV-CANNON/Hunt

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 30th day of September 2023. AILEE . CANNON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ce: counsel of record