[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-11665

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:18-cv-00177-MCR-MJF

TRACY L. COLLIER, 

 Petitioner-Appellant

 versus

MARK S. INCH,

 Respondent-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(December 28, 2020)

Before GRANT, LAGOA, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 19-11665 Date Filed: 12/28/2020 Page: 1 of 4
2

Tracy Collier filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. The district court 

adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and dismissed 

Collier’s petition for lack of jurisdiction. Because Collier has waived his right to 

challenge on appeal that conclusion, we affirm. 

This is not the first federal habeas petition Collier has ever filed. His crime 

of conviction was that of escape, and he was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment 

in January 2002. Collier v. McNeil, No. 5:06-cv-00172-MCR-MD, 2008 WL 

4346784, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 18, 2008). For this conviction, he filed a § 2254 

petition in 2006. Id. at *2. The magistrate judge recommended that the petition 

should be denied, and after considering Collier’s objections, the district court 

adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Id. at *1–2. Collier’s 

motion for a certificate of appealability with the district court was denied, and he 

fared no better in this Court, which denied him a certificate of appealability in 

2009. Collier v. McNeil, No. 5:06-cv-00172-MCR-MD, 2008 WL 4661476 (N.D. 

Fla. Oct. 21, 2008); see also Order, Collier, 2008 WL 4346784, ECF No. 69. 

What gives rise to this case is Collier’s newest § 2254 petition, which he 

placed in the prison mailing system in 2018. The magistrate judge found that the 

district court lacked jurisdiction to consider his petition, because it found that the 

petition was a “second or successive” habeas petition within the meaning of 28 

U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), and Collier did “not allege or show he obtained the 

Eleventh Circuit’s authorization to file it.” Further, the magistrate judge found that 

a certificate of appealability was not warranted in this case. Finally, and crucially, 

the magistrate judge included a “Notice to the Parties,” alerting the parties to this 

USCA11 Case: 19-11665 Date Filed: 12/28/2020 Page: 2 of 4
3

Court’s Rule 3–1, which states the consequences of failing to object to the report 

and recommendation. In particular, a party who fails to do so “in accordance with 

the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the 

district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the 

party was informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on 

appeal for failing to object.” 11th Cir. R. 3–1. 

Collier never objected to the report and recommendation, which was dated 

March 7, 2019. On April 9, the district court issued its order. After noting that 

Collier “was furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and afforded an 

opportunity to file objections pursuant to” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court adopted 

the report and recommendation and dismissed Collier’s petition for lack of 

jurisdiction. Shortly thereafter, Collier appealed to this Court, and is now before 

us pro se. 

Collier presents two arguments for reversing the district court. First, he 

argues that he was incompetent in the trial where he was convicted. And second, 

he argues that he was incompetent to represent himself at that trial. 

These arguments are unavailing, because Collier has waived his right to 

challenge on appeal the only question that matters at this stage—whether the 

district court had jurisdiction at all over the petition. The district court noted that 

Collier had the opportunity to object pursuant to § 636(b)(1). The report and 

recommendation included a notice that warned the parties of the consequences of 

failing to object. And the record is entirely devoid of any objections by Collier to 

anything in the report and recommendation.

USCA11 Case: 19-11665 Date Filed: 12/28/2020 Page: 3 of 4
4

In fact, Collier’s right to challenge the district court’s finding of lack of 

jurisdiction is doubly waived. Even if he had timely objected to the report and 

recommendation, his only brief before us never engages with, let alone argues, the 

district court’s jurisdictional finding. That means he has waived the issue. United 

States v. Silvestri, 409 F.3d 1311, 1338 n.18 (11th Cir. 2005). 

And because that issue is dispositive, Collier cannot prevail in his appeal. 

We have explained that “[a]bsent authorization from this Court, the district court 

lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive habeas petition.” Osbourne v. 

Sec’y, Florida Dep’t of Corr., 968 F.3d 1261, 1264 (11th Cir. 2020). The district 

court found such a lack of jurisdiction, and Collier, having waived his argument 

twice over, cannot challenge that finding now. The district court’s order is 

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 19-11665 Date Filed: 12/28/2020 Page: 4 of 4