UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

MIDDLE DIVISION

JUSTIN DERON COLEMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

BEN BROOKS, Judge, Circuit Court 

in Mobile, et al.,

Respondents,

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

Case No.: 4:15-cv-00681-MHH-JEO

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

On June 15, 2015, Chief Magistrate Judge John Ott entered a report and 

recommendation (Doc. 7) concerning Mr. Coleman’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas 

petition.

1

 In his report, Judge Ott recommended that the Court transfer this action 

to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama because 

Mr. Coleman challenges a decision by the Circuit Court of Mobile County, 

Alabama to revoke his probation and re-impose a state prison sentence. Judge Ott 

explained to the parties that they had fourteen days in which to file objections to 

the recommendation. (Doc. 7, pp. 3-4). 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). 

 

1 Mr. Coleman’s complaint invokes 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See Doc. 1). On June 5, 2015, Judge Ott 

entered an order construing Mr. Coleman’s complaint as a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because Mr. Coleman seeks dismissal of his probation violation 

and release from custody. (Doc. 5). 

FILED

 2015 Jun-30 PM 03:44

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 1:15-cv-00337-WS-C Document 8 Filed 06/30/15 Page 1 of 4
2

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.

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)).

Case 1:15-cv-00337-WS-C Document 8 Filed 06/30/15 Page 2 of 4
3

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. 

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 reviewed the record and Chief Magistrate Judge Ott’s report 

and recommendation. (Doc. 7). Applying the clearly erroneous standard, the 

Court ADOPTS the June 15, 2015 report and ACCEPTS Judge Ott’s 

recommendation that the Court transfer this action to the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of Alabama. The Court will enter a separate order 

consistent with this memorandum opinion. 

Case 1:15-cv-00337-WS-C Document 8 Filed 06/30/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

opinion to Mr. Coleman. 

DONE and ORDERED this June 30, 2015.

 _________________________________

 MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00337-WS-C Document 8 Filed 06/30/15 Page 4 of 4