United States v. Hudson, 1:23-cr-00131

Defendant Kayricka Wortham filed multiple motions seeking dismissal of charges and challenging the court's jurisdiction in a federal criminal case.
Magistrate Judge Cannon issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R), recommending denial of Wortham's motions.
Wortham requested and received multiple extensions to file objections to the R&R but ultimately failed to file them by the deadline.
Wortham moved for reconsideration of the deadline extension and for a stay of legal proceedings to obtain counsel and prepare objections, both of which were denied.
The district court conducted a review of the R&R for clear error, as no objections were filed by Wortham.
The court found no clear error and fully adopted Magistrate Judge Cannon's R&R, denying all of Wortham's pending motions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wortham's motions to dismiss should be granted	N/A	Court lacks jurisdiction; seeks dismissal	Court denied motions to dismiss
Adequacy of time to file objections to R&R	N/A	More time needed; requests longer deadline	Court denied further extension requests
Reconsideration of extension for objections	N/A	Prior extension insufficient, seeks reconsideration	Motion for reconsideration denied
Motion to stay proceedings	N/A	Seeks indefinite stay to obtain counsel and file objections	Motion to stay proceedings denied

Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (outlining district judge's duty to review magistrate's recommendations)
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (district courts can review both factual and legal findings for clear error if no objection is made)
Monroe v. Thigpen, 932 F.2d 1437 (11th Cir. 1991) (appellate review standards differ depending on whether objections were made below)