UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-22372-CIV-ALTONAGA/Reid

MARCUS J. HARRIS,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

____________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE came before the Court sua sponte. On June 9, 2020, Petitioner, Marcus J. 

Harris, filed a Petition Under 28 U.S.C. [Section] 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in 

State Custody Pursuant to a State Court Judgment [ECF No. 1]. The Clerk referred the case to 

Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid for a report and recommendation on any dispositive matters. 

(See Notice [ECF No. 2]). On October 23, 2020, Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid entered a

Report of Magistrate Judge (“Report”) [ECF No. 3], recommending the Petition be dismissed as 

legally insufficient and no certificate of appealability issue. (See generally Report). 

When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has been objected to, district courts must review 

the disposition de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). When no party has timely objected, however, 

“the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to 

accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition 

(citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court 

has acknowledged Congress’s intent was to only require a de novo review where objections have 

been properly filed, not when neither party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) 

(“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate[] 

Case 1:20-cv-22372-CMA Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/29/2020 Page 1 of 4
CASE NO. 20-22372-CIV-ALTONAGA/Reid

2

[judge]’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party 

objects to those findings.” (emphasis in original; alterations added)). 

The Report advised Petitioner he had 14 days to file an objection. (See Report 4–5). To 

date, Petitioner has not filed an objection. The Court therefore reviews the Report for clear error. 

In his Petition, Petitioner claims he is being “held in violation of the Constitution of the 

United States.” (Pet. 2). Petitioner alleges three claims for relief: (1) he is “entitled to [] previous 

credit of 1,978 days to be applied to his current sentence of 5 years . . . for a probation violation[]” 

(id. (alterations added)); (2) the state court incorrectly determined he “waived his right to all 

previous credit” (id. 3); and (3) Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal improperly denied his 

petition for writ of mandamus “to compel [the trial court judge] . . . to produce documentation 

from the proceedings that show Petitioner waived any previous credit in this case” (id. 4 

(alterations added)). Petitioner asks the Court to “[r]everse and [r]emand” the state trial court and 

Third District Court of Appeal’s opinions and rulings. (Id. 7 (alterations added)).

In a thorough and well-reasoned Report, Magistrate Judge Reid concludes “Petitioner’s 

claims are not cognizable under [section] 2254[,]” and even if the Petition did raise cognizable 

federal claims, Petitioner’s allegations “lack[] adequate factual support.” (Report 2–3 (alterations

added)). The Court agrees. 

Petitioner challenges the state courts’ failure to award him jail credit when convicting him 

of a probation violation. (See Pet. 2–4; Report 3). Petitioner’s claims are not cognizable under 

section 2254. See Griffin v. Florida, No. 5:08-cv-201, 2009 WL 691327, at *6 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 

13, 2009) (“A state decision . . . that affects only the sentencing rights of prisoners under state law 

is of no consequence in relation to a federal habeas corpus application.” (alteration added)); 

McDaniel v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., No. 8:11-cv-1395, 2011 WL 6258461, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 

Case 1:20-cv-22372-CMA Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/29/2020 Page 2 of 4
CASE NO. 20-22372-CIV-ALTONAGA/Reid

3

13, 2011) (“To the extent [the petitioner] is alleging that the state trial court improperly applied 

Florida’s crediting statute, . . . the claim presents a matter of state law for which federal habeas 

corpus relief does not lie.” (alterations added; collecting cases)). As the Report correctly notes, 

Petitioner’s conclusory allegation he is being held in violation of the U.S. Constitution does not 

dictate a different result. (See Report 3).

The Court also agrees that “even if the [P]etition presented cognizable federal grounds, it 

would still be insufficient because it lacks adequate factual support.” (Id. (alteration added)). 

Petitioner’s allegations directed toward a constitutional violation resulting from a purported 

waived time credit are too conclusory and lacking in factual support to establish a basis for federal 

habeas relief. (See Pet. 2–4; Report 3). Further, Petitioner’s requested relief — to “[r]everse and 

[r]emand” the state trial court and Third District Court of Appeal (Pet. 7 (alterations added)) — is 

without merit. (See Report 4 (stating Petitioner “appears to seek an injunction compelling the 

Florida courts to comply with their own law, which [] raise[s] federalism concerns. (alterations 

added))).

The undersigned has reviewed the Report, record, and applicable law to assure herself that 

no clear error appears on the face of the record. In the light of that review, the undersigned agrees 

with Judge Reid’s analysis and recommendations. 

Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report [ECF No. 3] is ACCEPTED AND 

ADOPTED. Petitioner, Marcus J. Harris’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. [Section] 2254 for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody Pursuant to a State Court Judgment [ECF No. 1] is 

DISMISSED. A certificate of appealability shall not issue. Final judgment will issue by separate 

order. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

Case 1:20-cv-22372-CMA Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/29/2020 Page 3 of 4
CASE NO. 20-22372-CIV-ALTONAGA/Reid

4

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 29th day of October, 2020.

 _________________________________

 CECILIA M. ALTONAGA

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid; 

Petitioner, Marcus J. Harris, pro se;

Case 1:20-cv-22372-CMA Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/29/2020 Page 4 of 4