MARTINEZ v. DIXON

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
ERIC C. MARTINEZ,
Petitioner,
v. 	Case No.: 1:24cv164-MW/HTC
RICKY DIXON,
Respondent.
_________________________/
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, ECF No. 18, and 	has 	also 	reviewed 	de novo 	Petitioner’s
objections, ECF No. 24. None of Petitioner’s objections warrant further relief or
comment, except as follows.
Petitioner 	asserts 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s 	recommendation 	regarding
Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim concerning Petitioner’s decision
to not testify at trial is erroneous inasmuch as the state court relied on trial counsel’s
representations that the had advised his client of his right to testify. ECF No. 24. As
a basis to assert error, Petitioner relies upon a federal case involving a section 2255
habeas petition, which involves different standards for collaterally challenging
federal convictions. See Gallego v. United States, 174 F.3d 1196, 1197–98 (11th Cir.
1999). Notwithstanding Petitioner’s misplaced reliance on Gallego, he has not
demonstrated a clearly established federal-law error or unreasonable determination
Case 1:24-cv-00164-MW-HTC Document 25 Filed 04/13/26 Page 1 of 3

2
of fact on the part of the state court, based solely on the state court record, and is
thus not entitled to an evidentiary hearing regarding his habeas claims before this
Court. See Landers v. Warden, Atty. Gen. of Ala., 776 F.3d 1288, 1295 (11th Cir.
2015).
In addition, Petitioner now apparently seeks to argue additional grounds for
habeas relief, including new errors, such as the sufficiency of the charging
document, and his alleged “actual innocence.” However, Petitioner cannot amend
his habeas petition through filing objections to the report and recommendation. See
Floyd v. Johnson, 2014 WL 3545032, at *10 (S.D. Ga. July 15, 2014) (noting when
petitioner must seek leave to amend § 2254 petition under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
The report and recommendation, ECF No. 18, is accepted and adopted, over
the Petitioner’s objections, as this Court’s opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment
stating, “The petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the conviction in State v.
Martinez, Case No. 21-2015-CF-145-A, in the First Judicial Circuit, in and for
Gilchrist County, Florida, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED as to Grounds One, Three,
and Four, and DENIED as to Ground Two.” A certificate of appealability is
Case 1:24-cv-00164-MW-HTC Document 25 Filed 04/13/26 Page 2 of 3

3
DENIED. The Clerk shall close the file.
SO ORDERED on April 13, 2026.
s/Mark E. Walker 	____
United States District Judge
Case 1:24-cv-00164-MW-HTC Document 25 Filed 04/13/26 Page 3 of 3