ORDER

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 41; Report), entered on July 3, 2019. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Richardson recommends that Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Doc. No. 24) be denied. See Report at 18. Defendant has filed objections to the Report. See Defendant's Objections to Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 45; Objections). The United States has responded to the Objections by stating that if the Court determines to substantively review Defendant's untimely Objections, then the United States adopts the arguments set forth in its response to the motion to suppress. See United States' Response to Motion to Permit Late Filing (Doc. No. 47; Response).

The Court reviews a magistrate judge's report and recommendation in accordance with the requirements of Rule 59, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule(s)) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court "may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings of the recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Rule 59(b)(3). "[I]n determining whether to accept, reject, or modify the magistrate's report and recommendations, the district court has the duty to conduct a careful and complete review." Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982 (quoting Nettles v. Wainright, 677 F.2d 404, 408 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982)1). Additionally, pursuant to Rule 59 and § 636(b)(1), where a party timely objects2 to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, "[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Rule 59(b)(3); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). Nevertheless, while de novo review of a magistrate judge's recommendation is required only where an objection is made,3 the Court always retains the authority to review such a recommendation in the exercise of its discretion. See Rule 59 advisory committee notes (2005) (citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154; Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976)).

Upon careful consideration and independent review of the record, the Court will overrule the Objections and accept and adopt the factual and legal conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge. In doing so, the Court notes that the facts underlying the Objections were fully addressed by the Magistrate Judge. Additionally, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge's conclusions that the incriminating nature of the firearm and marijuana was immediately apparent and that a search of the vehicle was authorized by the automobile exception are entirely supported by the facts and the applicable law.4

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. Defendant's Objections to Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 45) are OVERRULED.

2. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 41) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.

3. Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Doc. No. 24) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED.