United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
TO VACATE 28 U.S.C. § 2255
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINAL REPORT
Totenberg United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation (R&R) [Doc. 683], which
recommends that Movant's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to
vacate and a certificate of appealability be denied, and on
Movant's recent letter to the Court [Doc. 687], construed
by the Clerk of Court as objections to the R&R.
reviewing a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation,
the district court “shall make a de novo determination
of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “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.”
United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1361 (11th
Cir. 2009) (quoting Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536,
1548 (11th Cir. 1988)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The District Judge must “give fresh consideration to
those issues to which specific objection has been made by a
party.” Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ.
of Ga., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). Absent objection, the
district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the
magistrate judge, ” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and
“need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation, ” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, advisory committee
note, 1983 Addition, Subdivision (b).
Court previously extended the time - until April 21, 2017 -
in which to file objections and advised Movant that his
filings must be in English. (Order of Mar. 22, 2017, Doc.
686.) Movant's letter is written in Spanish, is not
dated, and was filed on April 27, 2017, after expiration of
the extended time in which to object. (Letter, Doc. 687.)
Notwithstanding, in the interest of fairness to Movant, the
Court has obtained an informal translation of Movant's
filing and finds that he raises no specific objection to a
particular finding or recommendation by the Magistrate Judge
and otherwise finds that Movant raises no substantive issue
that has not been addressed in the course of the proceedings
in his criminal case.
the Court does not view Movant's filing as presenting
specific objections in conformity with requisite procedure or
the Court's instructions, out of an abundance of caution,
the Court has considered Petitioner's objections as a
challenge to the entirety of the Magistrate Judge's
findings and in turn, reviewed the petition and R&R on a
de novo independent basis. The Magistrate Judge has
provided a correct assessment of the facts and correctly
determined (1) that Movant was not deprived of his right to
appeal and that the government is within its rights to seek
enforcement of Movant's appeal waiver, (2) that Movant
fails to show that ineffective assistance of counsel rendered
his guilty plea involuntary or invalid, and (3) that Movant
waived the right to challenge his sentence or counsel's
assistance on sentencing matters. (See R&R at
9-21, Doc. 683.)
the Court OVERRULES Movant's construed objections [Doc.
687], ADOPTS the R&R [Doc. 683], and DENIES Movant's
Motion to Vacate [Doc. 650]. The Court further DENIES a COA
in connection with this motion.
 Federal Court filings must be in
English, and documents written in another language must be
filed with a translation. See United States v. Rivera
Rosario, 300 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2002) (stating that
“[i]t is clear, to the point of perfect transparency,
that federal court proceedings must be conducted in
English” and that “[e]ven if this practice were
not intuitively obvious in Puerto Rico, Congress enacted [48
U.S.C. § 864], which requires that ‘[a]ll
pleadings and proceedings in the United States District Court
for the District of Puerto Rico . . . .. be conducted in the
English language.'”); Light for Life, Inc. v.
Our Firm Found. for Koreans, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-38-CAR,
2015 WL 631138, at *7 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 12, 2015)
(“‘[F]ederal court proceedings must be conducted
in English.' Without an English translation, the Court
cannot consider this evidence on summary judgment.”
(quoting Rivera Rosario, 300 F.3d at 5)); United
States v. One 1988 Chevrolet Half Ton Pickup Truck, 357
F.Supp.2d 1321, 1329 (S.D. Ala. 2005) (discussing the
principle that parties are responsible for providing English
translation of their exhibits).
 (See generally Order and
R&R of Sept. 17, 2012, at 129-53, ECF No. 274 (discussing
search warrant for residence where Movant was allegedly an
occupant and recommending that Movant's motions to
suppress evidence be denied); Guilty Plea Tr., ...