MAHON
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Martin Mahon petitioned for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state conviction. The district court, reviewing the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denied the petition and found no Certificate of Appealability was warranted.
The district court denied Mahon's petition for writ of habeas corpus, adopting the magistrate judge's well-reasoned report and recommendation. The court found no grounds for relief and determined that a Certificate of Appealability was not warranted.
“A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).”
Establishes the standard of review for magistrate judge reports in federal district courts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMartin Mahon filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction in Florida state court. A U.S. Magistrate Ju…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Certificate Of Appealability cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (the "Report") of the Honorable Lisette M. Reid, U.S. Magistrate Judge, on Petitioner Martin Mahon's (“Petitioner") Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 [DE 12]. In her thorough and wellreasoned Report, Judge Reid recommends that: the Petition be denied; no Certificate of Appealability Issue; and that the case be closed. Petitioner filed objections to the Report.
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 objections are 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).
The Court, having considered Judge Reid's Report, Petitioner's objections thereto, and having conducted a de novo review of the record, agrees with Judge Reid's well-reasoned analysis and her recommendation that the Petition be denied. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that:
1) The Report and Recommendation [DE 12] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this Court's Order.
2) Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 [DE 1] is DISMISSED.
3) A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.
4) This case is CLOSED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 14th day of May, 2025.
RODNEY SMITH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: All counsel of record