Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION FILE NO. 1:09-cr-245-TCB CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:21-cv-794-TCB
03-29-2021
CRAIG COURTNEY CARROLL, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
ORDER
This case comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman's final report and recommendation (the "R&R") [292], which recommends dismissing Petitioner Craig Carroll's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. No objections have been filed.
Carroll stylized his petition as a motion for a writ of audita querela, coram nobis, mandamus, and other relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651. That statute "permits 'courts established by Act of Congress' to issue 'all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions.'" United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904, 911 (2009) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)). However, it is an extraordinary remedy that "may not issue when alternative remedies, such as habeas corpus, are available." Id. (quoting United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 510-11 (1954)). Accordingly, the magistrate judge properly treated Carroll's petition as one for a writ of habeas corpus.
A district judge has a duty to conduct a "careful and complete" review of a magistrate judge's R&R. Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 408 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982)). This review may take different forms, however, depending on whether there are objections to the R&R. The district judge must "make a de novo determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In contrast, those portions of the R&R to which no objection is made need only be reviewed for "clear error." Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (quoting Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005)).
Macort dealt only with the standard of review to be applied to a magistrate's factual findings, but the Supreme Court has indicated that there is no reason for the district court to apply a different standard to a magistrate's legal conclusions. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Thus, district courts in this circuit have routinely reviewed both legal and factual conclusions for clear error. See Tauber v. Barnhart, 438 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1373-74 (N.D. Ga. 2006) (collecting cases). This is to be contrasted with the standard of review on appeal, which distinguishes between the two. See Monroe v. Thigpen, 932 F.2d 1437, 1440 (11th Cir. 1991) (holding that when a magistrate's findings of fact are adopted by the district court without objection, they are reviewed on appeal under a "plain error standard" while questions of law always remain subject to de novo review).
After conducting a complete and careful review of the R&R, the district judge "may accept, reject, or modify" the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Williams, 681 F.2d at 732. The district judge "may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
The Court has conducted a careful and complete review of the R&R and finds no clear error in its factual or legal conclusions. Accordingly, the Court adopts as its Order the R&R [292]. Carroll's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is denied. The corresponding civil action number 1:21-cv-794-TCB-AJB is dismissed, and the Clerk is directed to close the civil case.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of March, 2021.
/s/_________
Timothy C. Batten, Sr.
United States District Judge