UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 20-22032-CIV-GAYLES/REID

CHRISTOPHER J. MOORE,

Petitioner,

v.

JOSE COLON, Warden, et al.,

Respondent. 

/

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Report of Magistrate Judge Recommending 

Dismissal of Habeas Petition – 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Report”) [ECF No. 17]. Petitioner filed a pro 

se federal habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-43, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and the All 

Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Petitioner seeks an Order from the Court directing his release from the 

custody of the Florida Department of Corrections to home confinement or indefinite suspension of 

his state prison sentence due to the Covid-19 pandemic. [ECF No. 1]. The matter was referred to

Magistrate Judge Reid for a ruling on all pre-trial non-dispositive matters and for a Report and 

Recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 2]. The Report recommends that the Court

dismiss the petition because a § 2241 petition is not the proper vehicle for Petitioner to challenge the 

conditions of his confinement and that dismissal should be without prejudice to Plaintiff refiling his 

claims under § 1983. To the extent Petitioner’s claims can be viewed as a proper challenge to the 

execution of his state sentence, and therefore properly brought under § 2241, the Report still recommends dismissal as Petitioner has failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The Report also finds 

that § 2254 does not authorize Petitioner’s release from custody, and the Court lacks jurisdiction to 

Case 1:20-cv-22032-DPG Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

grant mandamus relief pursuant to § 1651. Petitioner has timely objected to the Report. [ECF Nos. 

20, 21].1

A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(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, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (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., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 

781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). 

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record and agrees with Judge Reid’s wellreasoned analysis and conclusion that the Petition should be dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

(1) Judge Reid’s Report [ECF No. 17] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and 

incorporated into this Order by reference;

(2) Petitioner’s Federal Habeas Corpus Petition [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED without 

prejudice; and 

(3) This case shall be CLOSED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 30th day of September, 2020. 

________________________________

DARRIN P. GAYLES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 1 On September 29, 2020, Petitioner moved to amend his objections after he realized that his original objections 

contained “errors and misspelled words.” [ECF No. 21]. In conducting its review, the Court reviewed the Amended 

Objections as requested by Petitioner.

Case 1:20-cv-22032-DPG Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2020 Page 2 of 2