[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 12

- 14637 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:11

- cv - 23134

- KMM

IVAN FERNANDEZ, Petitioner

- Appellant,

versus FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent

- Appellee.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Di strict of Florida

________________________ (October 30, 2013)
Before DUBINA, WILSON and PRYOR , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: Ivan Fernandez appeals the d enial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus that challeng ed his conviction in a Florida court of second degree murder. See 28

Case: 12-14637 Date Filed: 10/30/2013 Page: 1 of 32 U.S.C. § 2254. We granted a certificate of appealability to decide whether Fernandez fairly presented to the district court a claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to i nvestigate and argue that Fernandez acted in self

- defense. After a careful review of the record, we answer that question in the negative and affirm.
Fernandez failed to present in his petition the claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to ar gue about self

- defense

. Fernandez was required to present that claim in clear and simple language so that it c ould be easily identified and understood by the district court

. See Smith v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr. , 572 F.3d
1327 , 1352 ( 11 th Cir

. 2009 ). Fernandez alleg ed in his petition that the “trial court committed fundamental error by instructing the jury on the forcible felony exception to self

- defense” and that “trial counsel did not present[] a complete
defense , ” but the district court understandab ly interpreted Fernandez’s allegations as presenting a claim that trial counsel had been ineffective for fail ing to object to the jury instruction. Fernandez “ adopt[ed] . . . [and] incorporated by reference” his brief on direct appeal in the state courts , which addressed only the alleged error of the trial court in giving the instruction

. Fernandez incorporat ed by reference in to his federal petition all t h e claims of ineffective assistance t hat he raised in h is first state postconviction motion , see Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850, but that motion did not include the claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to argue about self

Case: 12-14637 Date Filed: 10/30/2013 Page: 2 of 33 defense. Although that claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was raised in Fernandez ’s second state postconviction motion , Fernandez did not even allude to
his second motion in his federal petition

. See Smith , 572 F.3d at 1352. Fernandez included his claim of ineffective assistance in his objection to the report and recommendation, but we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion when it r efus ed to consider a claim that Fernandez had never present ed to the magistrate judge. See Williams v. McNeil , 557 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11 th Cir. 2009) (“[A] district court has discretion to decline to consider a party’ s argument when that argument was not first pr esented to the magistrate judge.”).
We AFFIRM the denial of Fernandez’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Case: 12-14637 Date Filed: 10/30/2013 Page: 3 of 3