U.S. v. PERAZA, CR 14-290-TUC-JAS (BJM). (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20141211794
Visitors: 23
Filed: Dec. 10, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 10, 2014
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. SOLO, District Judge. Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Macdonald. In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Macdonald recommends granting Defendant Amelia Peraza's motion to suppress for lack of probable cause (Doc. 30) and Defendant Vanessa Marie Gonzales's motion to join (Doc. 47) Peraza's motion to suppress for lack of probable cause. As the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation correctly resolved the motions
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. SOLO, District Judge. Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Macdonald. In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Macdonald recommends granting Defendant Amelia Peraza's motion to suppress for lack of probable cause (Doc. 30) and Defendant Vanessa Marie Gonzales's motion to join (Doc. 47) Peraza's motion to suppress for lack of probable cause. As the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation correctly resolved the motions,..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. SOLO, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Macdonald. In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Macdonald recommends granting Defendant Amelia Peraza's motion to suppress for lack of probable cause (Doc. 30) and Defendant Vanessa Marie Gonzales's motion to join (Doc. 47) Peraza's motion to suppress for lack of probable cause. As the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation correctly resolved the motions, the Government's objections are denied.1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
(1) Magistrate Judge Macdonald's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 62) is accepted and adopted.
(2) Defendant Amelia Peraza's motion to suppress for lack of probable cause (Doc. 30) and Defendant Vanessa Marie Gonzales's motion to join (Doc. 47) Peraza's motion to suppress for lack of probable cause are granted.
(3) This case is referred back to Magistrate Judge Macdonald 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
