UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JOHNSON

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
TORRIEO MONTE JOHNSON, :
:
Petitioner, :
:
v. : CASE NO.: 7:20-CR-9 (LAG)
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :
:
Respondent. :
:
ORDER
Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (R&R)
dated October 15, 2025. (Doc. 157). Therein, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the
Court deny Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis (IFP) (Doc.
150) because his appeal is not taken in good faith. (Doc. 157 at 2). Torrieo Johnson
filed the Motion for Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis on April 25, 2025. (Doc. 150).
In the R&R recommending denial, the Magistrate Judge found that there was no
final appealable order for Petitioner to appeal, thus Petitioner’s appeal was not brought in
good faith. (Doc. 157 at 3). The Magistrate Judge’s recommendation triggered the fourteen-
day period provided under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) for the parties to file written objections.
Mr. Johnson filed his objection on November 12, 2025. (Doc. 158).
District courts have “the duty to conduct a careful and complete review” to
determine “whether to accept, reject, or modify” a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation. Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam)
(citation omitted). The Court reviews de novo the dispositive portions of a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation to which a party objects and reviews the rest for clear
error. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), (C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), (b)(3). When a party’s
objections, however, are “[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general[,]” the Court “need not”
consider them. United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1361 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam)
Case 7:20-cr-00009-LAG-ALS Document 160 Filed 01/28/26 Page 1 of 2

2
(citation omitted). An objecting party “must clearly advise the district court and pinpoint
the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” Id. at 1360.
Mr. Johnson’s objection does not take issue with any specific finding made by the
Magistrate Judge; but instead, appears to raise arguments challenging rulings made during
trial. The Court has, thus, reviewed the R&R for clear error and finds none. Thus, Mr.
Johnson’s Objection (Docs. 158) is OVERRULED.
Upon full review and consideration of the record, the Court finds that the R&R (Doc.
157) should be, and hereby is, ACCEPTED, ADOPTED, and made an order of this Court
for reasons of the findings made and reasons stated therein. Accordingly, Mr. Johnson’s
Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 28th day of January, 2026.
/s/ Leslie A. Gardner
LESLIE A. GARDNER, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 7:20-cr-00009-LAG-ALS Document 160 Filed 01/28/26 Page 2 of 2