Whether the Magistrate Judge failed to file a report and recommendation as required, depriving the Petitioner the opportunity to file a written objection

QUESTION PRESENTED , (1).Whether this Court should exercise its discretionary certiorari jurisdiction and grant certiorari, vacate the judgment below, and remand the case so that the Court of Appeals can correct the obvious error affecting Mr. Holmes’s substantial rights, where the Magistrate Judge failed to file a report and recommendation as required by Title 28 U.S.C.636(b)(1)(C), depriving the Petitioner the opportunity to file a written objection to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. See, Title 28 U.S.C. 636(b) (1) (C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (2)? (2). Whether this Court should exercise its discretionary certiorari jurisdiction and grant certiorari, vacate the judgment below, and remand the case so that the Court of Appeals can correct the obvious error affecting Mr. Holmes’s substantial rights, where Petitioner Raymond T. Holmes, was deprived of his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to effective counsel, a fair trial and due process of law pursuant to the United States Supreme Courts holding in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668,687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed 2d 674 (1984)? (A). Whether the trial court erred in denying Petitioner’s claim of ineffective of trial counsel without an evidentiary hearing where trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the illegally seized text messages from . Petitioner’s cell phone that were obtained from his service provider (Metro PCS) without a warrant? (B). Whether the warrantless search and Seizure of text messages from a cell phone and it’s service provider pursuant to Florida Statute §934.23 and implied consent . law, where no exigent circumstances exist, and no alternate source or inevitable . discovery in the record, violates the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? (C). Broward County, Florida after cases had been nolle-prossed shared suppressed text messages from its investigation and failed prosecution with Orange County, Florida for the instant prosecution, the foundation of this evidence being illegally seized without a , warrant, was Orange County’s State Attorney Office required to inquire into the legality of this evidence before it was used or was it lawful and constitutional to rely on the work ii product of a sister court who’s case has been dropped, and did this evidence constitutionally fall under the umbrella and connected to the Williams Rule Evidence to be listed as such in the State’s intent to use? (D). Does the Fourth Amendment protect the property that is held by a third party, to the point that law enforcement must obtain a warrant to take possession of personal correspondence meant only for one person and not posted on a general website for anybody to have access, private social interaction in consideration of Florida Statute 934.23? (E). Is it lawful and constitutional for the same text messages to be suppressed in Broward County, Florida (case nolle-prossed) only to be handed over to Orange County, Florida prosecutor’s office and used to convict where , no exigent circumstances, no alternate source, or no inevitable discovery in the record? (3). Whether the trial court erred in denying Petitioner’s claim of ineffective of trial counsel without an evidentiary hearing where trial counsel was ineffective for failing to timely move to sever counts one and two from counts three through five? (B). This case involves two (2) separate alleged victims from two (2) separate crimes/offenses (alleged) that were not severed for trial, though these crimes were the same in nature (sexual), one ; . was alleged consent and the other alleged by force, upon what constitutional legality is the State allowed to deprive a defendant a fair trial(s) as to each crime in consideration of ‘the evidence spilling over into the other clouding elements of each crime vice-versa? (4). Whether the trial court erred in denying Petitioner’s claim of ineffective of trial counsel without an evidentiary hearing where trial couns