U.S. v. Jones, CR 18-32-TUC-JAS (EJM). (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20181205817
Visitors: 27
Filed: Dec. 04, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 04, 2018
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. SOTO , District Judge . Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Markovich. In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Markovich recommends denying Defendant's motion to suppress. As the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation appropriately resolved the motion to suppress, the objections are denied. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: (1) Magistrate Judge Markovich's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 44) is
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. SOTO , District Judge . Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Markovich. In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Markovich recommends denying Defendant's motion to suppress. As the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation appropriately resolved the motion to suppress, the objections are denied. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: (1) Magistrate Judge Markovich's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 44) is ..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. SOTO, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Markovich. In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Markovich recommends denying Defendant's motion to suppress. As the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation appropriately resolved the motion to suppress, the objections are denied.1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
(1) Magistrate Judge Markovich's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 44) is accepted and adopted.
(2) The motion to suppress (Doc. 21) is denied.
FootNotes
1. The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court reviews for clear error the unobjected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. See Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). Defendant's request for oral argument (Doc. 50) and to file a reply (Doc. 54) are denied.
Source: Leagle
