Munoz v. United States

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 1:21-CV-22796-GAYLES/TORRES

WILLIAM MUNOZ,

Petitioner,

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent. _____________________________/ ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’ Report and Recommendation on Motion to Vacate Criminal Conviction (the “Report”). [ECF No. 12]. On August 2, 2021, Petitioner William Munoz (“Petitioner”) filed his Memorandum in Support of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 1]. On August 24, 2021, the United States of America (the “Government”) filed its Response in Opposition to Movant’s Motion to Vacate Sentence Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. [ECF No. 6]. On September 29, 2021, Petitioner filed his reply. [ECF No. 9]. On February 9, 2022, the case was referred to Judge Torres, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pretrial, non-dispositive matters, and for a report and recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 10]. Judge Torres’ Report recommends that the Court deny Petitioner’s Motion. [ECF No. 12]. On November 15, 2023, Petitioner filed his Objections to Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation on Motion to Vacate Criminal Conviction. [ECF No. 13]. On November 27, 2023, the Government filed its response. [ECF No. 14]. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). This Court, having conducted a de novo review of the record, agrees with Judge Torres’ well-reasoned analysis and agrees that the Motion must be denied. Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Petitioner William Munoz’s Objections to Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation on Motion to Vacate Criminal Conviction, [ECF No. 13], are OVERRULED; (2) Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’ Report and Recommendation on Motion to Vacate Criminal Conviction, [ECF No. 12], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference; (3) Petitioner William Munoz’s Memorandum in Support of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion, [ECF No. 1], is DENIED; and (4) This case shall be administratively CLOSED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 11th day of December, 2023.

Df □□ UNITED STATES DI CT JUDGE