LAURETI v. WARDEN FCI-MIAMI

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

MARCO LAURETI,

Petitioner,

v. Case No.: 4:23cv435-MW/MAL

WARDEN, FCI-MIAMI, et al.,

Respondents. ___________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 11, and has also reviewed de novo Petitioner’s objections, ECF No. 12. Even construed generously, Petitioner’s “objections” (which he styles as a “Notice to the Court”) are not so much objections as an attempt to inform this Court where this case should be transferred. See ECF No. 12 at 1–2. Out of an abundance of caution, however, this Court will review the Report and Recommendation de novo as if Petitioner objected to its contents. Upon de novo review, the Report and Recommendation is correct. Because Petitioner seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, only a court inside the district where Petitioner is confined has jurisdiction over this case. See United States v. Saldana, 273 F. App’x 845, 846 (11th Cir. 2008) (citing Ledesma v. United States, 445 F.2d 1323, 1323–24 (5th Cir. 1971)).1 Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED: 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

2. The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Petitioner at his new address: USP McCreary, U.S. Penitentiary, Satellite Camp, P.O. Box, 3000, Pine Knot, KY 42635. 3. The Clerk shall also amend the docket to reflect this address.

4. The Clerk shall close the file. SO ORDERED on December 6, 2023.

s/Mark E. Walker ____ Chief United States District Judge

1 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981.