PRESLEY
v.
SECRETARY 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.
The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the petitioner's § 2254 relief and a certificate of appealability.
Petitioner sought federal habeas corpus relief under § 2254. The magistrate judge recommended denial of the petition. The petitioner filed objections,…
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 Strickland Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
Gregory Presley petitioned for § 2254 relief. The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that concluded the court should deny relief. ECF No. 18. I have considered the report and recommendation, and I have considered Presley’s objections. ECF No. 19. As a starting point, I note that Presley says he “objects to each and every factual finding, conclusion of law, and recommendation, whether explicit or implicit, in the Magistrate’s Report that is adverse to his prayer for federal habeas corpus relief.” ECF No. 19 at 1. This is improper because objections must be specific. See Marsden v. Moore, 847 F. 2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir.1988) (“Parties filing objections to a magistrate's report and recommendation must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court.”). Nonetheless, I have considered the entire matter de novo.
Having considered the matter de novo, I agree with the magistrate judge that Presley has not shown—as to either of his two claims—that the state court’s application of Strickland was unreasonable. Accordingly, he is not entitled to § 2254 relief, and his petition must be denied. I also agree that Presley has not made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” so a certificate of appealability must be denied. It is now ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 18) is adopted and incorporated into this order. 2. The clerk will enter a judgment that says, “The § 2254 petition is denied.”
3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.
4. The clerk will close the file.
SO ORDERED on October 10, 2022.
s/ Allen Winsor United States District Judge