U.S. v. LOYA, CR 14-1548-TUC-JAS (CRP). (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20150702a70
Visitors: 13
Filed: Jun. 29, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 29, 2015
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. SOTO , District Judge . Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Pyle. In his Report and Recommendation ("R & R"), Magistrate Judge Pyle recommends granting Defendant's motion to suppress. As the Court finds that the R & R correctly resolved the motion, the Government's objections are denied. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: (1) Magistrate Judge Pyle's R &R (Doc. 39) is accepted and adopted. (2) Defendant's motion t
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. SOTO , District Judge . Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Pyle. In his Report and Recommendation ("R & R"), Magistrate Judge Pyle recommends granting Defendant's motion to suppress. As the Court finds that the R & R correctly resolved the motion, the Government's objections are denied. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: (1) Magistrate Judge Pyle's R &R (Doc. 39) is accepted and adopted. (2) Defendant's motion to..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. SOTO, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Pyle. In his Report and Recommendation ("R & R"), Magistrate Judge Pyle recommends granting Defendant's motion to suppress. As the Court finds that the R & R correctly resolved the motion, the Government's objections are denied.1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
(1) Magistrate Judge Pyle's R &R (Doc. 39) is accepted and adopted.
(2) Defendant's motion to suppress (Doc. 16) is granted.
(3) This case is referred back to Magistrate Judge Pyle for any additional pretrial proceedings.
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. 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).
Source: Leagle
