John Dupree filed a federal habeas petition challenging his Alabama conviction and alleged ineffective assistance by two attorneys. The magistrate judge addressed only the allegations concerning one lawyer, and the district court adopted that recommendation and dismissed the petition without discussing Dupree’s allegations about the other lawyer. The Eleventh Circuit held that this violated its Clisby rule, which requires a district court to resolve every claim for relief presented in a habeas petition. The court vacated the judgment without prejudice and remanded for the district court to consider the omitted ineffective-assistance claim. It expressly declined to decide whether that claim had merit. The opinion also discussed, but did not immediately adopt, a proposed procedural rule that would give parties consequences for failing to object to factual findings or legal conclusions in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The court stated that any such rule should be adopted prospectively and with clear notice. The final disposition was limited: the habeas judgment was vacated and the omitted claim was returned to the district court for consideration.