U.S. v. SHARP, 1:14-cr-227-TCB. (2015)
Court: District Court, N.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20150805760
Visitors: 17
Filed: Aug. 04, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 04, 2015
Summary: ORDER TIMOTHY C. BATTEN, Sr. , District Judge . This case comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Vineyard's Final Report and Recommendation (the "R&R") [82], which recommends denying Defendant Gary Edwin Sharp, II's motion to suppress evidence [55]. Sharp has filed objections to the R&R [86]. The motion to suppress, the R&R, and Sharp's objections to the R&R are substantially identical to those filed in connection with another criminal case pending before the undersigned in which Shar
Summary: ORDER TIMOTHY C. BATTEN, Sr. , District Judge . This case comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Vineyard's Final Report and Recommendation (the "R&R") [82], which recommends denying Defendant Gary Edwin Sharp, II's motion to suppress evidence [55]. Sharp has filed objections to the R&R [86]. The motion to suppress, the R&R, and Sharp's objections to the R&R are substantially identical to those filed in connection with another criminal case pending before the undersigned in which Sharp..
More
ORDER
TIMOTHY C. BATTEN, Sr., District Judge.
This case comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Vineyard's Final Report and Recommendation (the "R&R") [82], which recommends denying Defendant Gary Edwin Sharp, II's motion to suppress evidence [55]. Sharp has filed objections to the R&R [86].
The motion to suppress, the R&R, and Sharp's objections to the R&R are substantially identical to those filed in connection with another criminal case pending before the undersigned in which Sharp is a defendant. See United States v. Sharp, No. 1:14-cr-229-TCB (N.D. Ga. filed June 17, 2014). In that case, the Court entered an Order [80] adopting the R&R over Sharp's objections and denying the motion to suppress.
For all the reasons set forth in the Court's Order adopting the R&R in case number 1:14-cr-229, the Court adopts as its Order the R&R [82] in this case, overrules Sharp's objections [86], and denies Sharp's motion to suppress evidence [55].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
