United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
Timothy C. Batten, Sr., United States District Judge
case comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Alan J.
Baverman's final report and recommendation (the
“R&R”)  which recommends dismissing the
petition  for a writ of audita querela, coram
nobis, mandamus, and other relief under 28 U.S.C. §
1651 and denying Defendant Craig Courtney Carroll's
motion  for “release on bail” and regarding
bond. Carroll has filed objections to the R&R
was found guilty by a jury of (1) interference with
interstate commerce by robbery, (2) use of a firearm during
the commission of a crime of violence, and (3) possession of
a firearm by a convicted felon. He was sentenced to 295
months of imprisonment, to be followed by five years of
supervised release. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed that
sentence. See United States v. Carroll, 450
Fed.Appx. 937 (11th Cir. Jan 12, 2012) (per curiam).
24, 2016, Carroll filed a motion  to vacate his sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that his career
offender sentence was unlawful. On March 16, 2017, Carroll
moved  to voluntarily dismiss his pending § 2255
motion to vacate, and on March 17, the § 2255 motion was
10, Carroll submitted a petition  for a writ of
audita querela, coram nobis, mandamus, and other
relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1651. On July 29, Carroll
submitted a letter “concerning [his] combined
petitions” that was docketed as a pro se motion 
“for release on bail” and regarding bond. On
August 9, the magistrate judge recommended that the petition
 be dismissed and the motion  be denied. Carroll
has objected to the R&R.
Legal Standard on Review of a Magistrate Judge's
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
Fed.Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (quoting
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins., 416
F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005)).
filing objections must specifically identify those findings
objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need
not be considered by the district court.”
Nettles, 677 F.2d at 410 n.8. “This rule
facilitates the opportunity for district judges to spend more
time on matters actually contested and produces a result
compatible with the purposes of the Magistrates Act.”
Id. at 410.
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).
Carroll's Objections to the R&R
first objects to the characterization of his petition 
as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, arguing that his motion was filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1651 and that “the clerk of court lacks
authority to decide if the all writs act should be considered
a challenge to the sentence or special assessments under 28
USC 2255 [sic].” Carroll misunderstands the
relationship among §§ 2241, 2255, and 1651.
2255 permits federal prisoners to collaterally attack their
conviction and sentence. See Boyd v. U.S., 754 F.3d
1298, 1300 (11th Cir. 2014). Ordinarily, “[o]nly a
single § 2255 motion is authorized and successive
attempts at relief are limited.” Id. (citing
Stewart v. United States, 646 F.3d 856, 865 (11th
Cir. 2011)). Under § 2255(e), however, a court can
“entertain a § 2241 habeas petition challenging
the legality of a prisoner's detention when the
prisoner's ‘remedy by [§ 2255] motion is
inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention.'” Williams v. Warden, Fed. Bureau of
Prisons, 713 F.3d 1332, 1334 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting
§ 2255(e)). This remedy is commonly known as the §
2255 “savings clause.” See id.
contrast, § 1651 “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)).
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)). However, it
“provides a way to collaterally attack a criminal
conviction for a person . . . who is no longer ‘in
custody' and therefore cannot seek habeas relief under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 or § 2241.” Chaidez v.
United States, 568 U.S. 342, 370 (2013).
§ 1651 cannot be used to circumvent the general
restriction on successive § 2255 motions. See
Morales v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 346 Fed.Appx. 539,
540-41 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). Carroll had previously
filed a motion under § 2255, so the magistrate judge-
recognizing that Carroll did not characterize his petition as
falling under § 2255- instead treated the matter as a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus under § 2241. The
Court agrees with the magistrate judge's characterization
of Carroll's ...