Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_14-cv-02453/USCOURTS-alnd-5_14-cv-02453-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL CORNILLIUS LESLIE,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF ALABAMA,

Defendants.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

Case No.: 5:14-cv-02453-MHH-JEO

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

On June 5, 2015, Chief Magistrate Judge Ott entered a report and 

recommendation (Doc. 12) concerning Mr. Leslie’s petition for habeas relief. In 

that report, Judge Ott recommended that the Court dismiss Mr. Leslie’s § 2254 

habeas petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 12, pp. 3-5, 8). 

Judge Ott permitted the parties fourteen days to file objections to the report and 

recommendation. (Doc. 12, pp. 8-9). Neither party has filed objections. 

A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings 

or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

When a party makes timely objections to a report and recommendation, the district 

court “make[s] a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified 

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.

FILED

 2015 Jun-29 PM 01:43

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 5:14-cv-02453-MHH-JEO Document 13 Filed 06/29/15 Page 1 of 4
2

When no party objects, the district court need not conduct a de novo review. 

Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also United States 

v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 

1050 (1984) (“The failure to object to the magistrate’s findings of fact prohibits an 

attack on appeal of the factual findings adopted by the district court except on 

grounds of plain error or manifest injustice.”) (internal citation omitted). In 

Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006), the Eleventh 

Circuit stated:

Most circuits agree that “[i]n 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.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & 

Accident Ins., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quotations omitted); 

accord Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir.1999) 

(“If no objection or only partial objection is made [to the magistrate 

judge’s report], the district court judge reviews those unobjected 

portions for clear error.”); United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 

1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (noting that the “clearly erroneous” standard is 

appropriate where there has been no objection to the magistrate 

judge’s ruling); Drywall Tapers & Pointers v. Local 530, 889 F.2d 

389, 395 (2d Cir. 1989) (“Where a magistrate [judge] has been 

appointed to conduct an evidentiary hearing, the district court reviews 

the Report and Recommendation under the same clearly erroneous 

standard.”) (citing Wooldridge v. Marlene Indus. Corp., 875 F.2d 540, 

544 (6th Cir. 1989)).

Id. The Eleventh Circuit does not appear to have expressly held that a district 

court should review a report and recommendation for plain error in the absence of 

objections; however, other courts in this Circuit have adopted such a position. 

Case 5:14-cv-02453-MHH-JEO Document 13 Filed 06/29/15 Page 2 of 4
3

Tauber v. Barnhart, 438 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1373 (N.D. Ga. 2006) (“[I]ssues upon 

which no specific objections are raised do not so require de novo review; the 

district court may therefore accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge, applying a clearly 

erroneous standard.”) (internal citations and quotations omitted); Am. Charities for 

Reasonable Fundraising Regulation, Inc. v. Pinellas County, 278 F. Supp. 2d 

1301, 1307 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (“[W]hen no timely and specific objections are filed, 

case law indicates that the court should review the findings using a clearly 

erroneous standard.”); Shuler v. Infinity Property & Gas, 2013 WL 1346615, at *1 

(N.D. Ala. March 29, 2013) (portions of a report and recommendation “to which 

no objections is filed are reviewed only for clear error”). 

The Court has carefully reviewed the record and Judge Ott’s June 5, 2015 

report and recommendation. (Doc. 12). Applying the clearly erroneous standard, 

the Court ADOPTS the June 4, 2015 report and ACCEPTS Judge Ott’s

recommendation that Mr. Leslie’s claims be dismissed without prejudice because

the Court lack jurisdiction over his claims.

1

 The Court will enter a separate order 

consistent with this memorandum opinion. 

 

1 Alternatively, Judge Ott recommended that the Court dismiss Mr. Leslie’s habeas petition with 

prejudice because Mr. Leslie’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is without merit, untimely, 

and procedurally defaulted. (Doc. 12, pp. 5-8). The undersigned does not disagree; however, 

because the Court adopts Judge’s Ott’s analysis and finds that the Court lacks jurisdiction over 

Mr. Leslie’s petition, the Court will not reach the merits of the petition. See Nalls v. 

Countrywide Home Services, LLC, 279 Fed. Appx. 824 (11th Cir. 2008) (“The district court 

Case 5:14-cv-02453-MHH-JEO Document 13 Filed 06/29/15 Page 3 of 4
4

The Court finds that the jurisdictional analysis in Judge Ott’s report and 

recommendation is clear and sound. Therefore, the Court will not issue a 

certificate of appealability to Mr. Leslie. Mr. Leslie may request a certificate of 

appealability from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. See Rule 22, Federal 

Rules of Appellate Procedure 22; Rule 11, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in 

the United States District Courts.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to please mail a copy of this memorandum 

opinion to Mr. Leslie. 

DONE and ORDERED this June 29, 2015.

 _________________________________

 MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

‘should inquire into whether it has subject matter jurisdiction at the earliest possible stage in the 

proceedings’ and is obligated to do so ‘sua sponte whenever [subject matter jurisdiction] may be 

lacking.’ If a district court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it ‘is powerless to 

continue’ and must dismiss the complaint.”) (quoting Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 

F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir.1999)). 

Case 5:14-cv-02453-MHH-JEO Document 13 Filed 06/29/15 Page 4 of 4