Filed: Sep. 11, 2013
Latest Update: Sep. 11, 2013
Summary: ORDER MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, District Judge. THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 48; Report), entered on August 8, 2013. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Richardson recommends that Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Doc. No. 33) be denied. See Report at 7. No objections to the Report have been filed, and the time for doing so has now passed. The Court reviews a magistrate judge's report and recommendation in accordance w
Summary: ORDER MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, District Judge. THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 48; Report), entered on August 8, 2013. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Richardson recommends that Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Doc. No. 33) be denied. See Report at 7. No objections to the Report have been filed, and the time for doing so has now passed. The Court reviews a magistrate judge's report and recommendation in accordance wi..
More
ORDER
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 48; Report), entered on August 8, 2013. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Richardson recommends that Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Doc. No. 33) be denied. See Report at 7. No objections to the Report have been filed, and the time for doing so has now passed.
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 made3, 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 accept and adopt the factual and legal conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 48) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
2. Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Doc. No. 33) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.
