of a constitutional violation.” Id. at 986. Allegations of distinct constitutional violations constitute separate claims for relief, “even if both allegations arise from the same alleged set of operative facts.” Id. Ineffective assistance of counsel constitutes a violation of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights and is a claim of a constitutional violation. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684-86, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2068-64, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). As an initial matter, in objecting to the R & R, Riolo did not argue specifically the magistrate judge had violated Clisby. Riolo’s failure to raise a Clisby violation before the district judge, however, does not prevent him from asserting Clisby error on direct appeal. See Dupree v. Warden, 715 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, our review is de novo. Rhode,
holding that we review a district courts interpretation of a statute de novo holding that we review legal conclusions of the court of federal claims de novo holding in the criminal context that a district courts obligation to make a de novo determination with respect to the portions of a magistrate judges report and recommendation to which objections are made did not require a de novo hearing holding that we review constitutional challenges de novo holding although petitioner did not object to magistrate judges failure to address certain claims in petitioners  2254 habeas petition we nevertheless could review de novo whether the district judge had violated clisby