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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(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., 208 F. App’x 781, 

784 (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. Id. 

Case 1:22-cv-23567-KMM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2023 Page 1 of 3
2

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, 2015 WL 

12780912, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015); see also Lopez v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-24263, 2019 WL 

2254704, 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, 93 F. 

Supp. 2d 1313, 1317 (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.” Id. The R&R further states that the Motion represents that Defendant agrees 

denaturalization is proper. Id. 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;

Case 1:22-cv-23567-KMM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2023 Page 2 of 3
3 

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 ___ day of February 2023. 

K. MICHAEL MOORE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

c: All counsel of record 

2nd

Case 1:22-cv-23567-KMM Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2023 Page 3 of 3