USA v. Curruth, 5:18-CR-00047-KDB-DCK. (2019)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20190621c16
Visitors: 30
Filed: Jun. 20, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 20, 2019
Summary: ORDER KENNETH D. BELL , District Judge . THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Defendant's Motion to Suppress Fruits of Unlawful Search [Dkt. 13] ("Motion"); Plaintiff's Response In Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Suppress [Dkt. 18] ("Response"); and the Memorandum and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [Dkt. 22] ("M&R"), recommending that the Court deny Defendant's Motion. Defendant did not file any objections to the M&R. After an independent review of the M&R and a d
Summary: ORDER KENNETH D. BELL , District Judge . THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Defendant's Motion to Suppress Fruits of Unlawful Search [Dkt. 13] ("Motion"); Plaintiff's Response In Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Suppress [Dkt. 18] ("Response"); and the Memorandum and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [Dkt. 22] ("M&R"), recommending that the Court deny Defendant's Motion. Defendant did not file any objections to the M&R. After an independent review of the M&R and a de..
More
ORDER
KENNETH D. BELL, District Judge.
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Defendant's Motion to Suppress Fruits of Unlawful Search [Dkt. 13] ("Motion"); Plaintiff's Response In Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Suppress [Dkt. 18] ("Response"); and the Memorandum and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [Dkt. 22] ("M&R"), recommending that the Court deny Defendant's Motion. Defendant did not file any objections to the M&R.
After an independent review of the M&R and a de novo review of the record, the Court concludes that the recommendation to deny the Motion is correct and in accordance with law. For the reasons stated in the M&R as well as Plaintiff's Response, the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED and Defendant's Motion to Suppress Fruits of Unlawful Search is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
