Filed: Apr. 23, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 23, 2012
Summary: ORDER VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON, District Judge. This cause comes before the Court pursuant to the April 5, 2012, report and recommendation of Mark A. Pizzo, United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 65), in which Judge Pizzo recommends that Defendant's Motion to Suppress All Evidence Seized from Warrantless Search of His Home and for Return of Property (Doc. # 24) be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, Judge Pizzo recommends denying Defendant's request for return of the cash
Summary: ORDER VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON, District Judge. This cause comes before the Court pursuant to the April 5, 2012, report and recommendation of Mark A. Pizzo, United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 65), in which Judge Pizzo recommends that Defendant's Motion to Suppress All Evidence Seized from Warrantless Search of His Home and for Return of Property (Doc. # 24) be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, Judge Pizzo recommends denying Defendant's request for return of the cash ..
More
ORDER
VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON, District Judge.
This cause comes before the Court pursuant to the April 5, 2012, report and recommendation of Mark A. Pizzo, United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 65), in which Judge Pizzo recommends that Defendant's Motion to Suppress All Evidence Seized from Warrantless Search of His Home and for Return of Property (Doc. # 24) be granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, Judge Pizzo recommends denying Defendant's request for return of the cash seized from his residence because such money has been administratively forfeited. Judge Pizzo recommends that the motion should otherwise be granted.
As of this date, there are no objections to the report and recommendation, and the time for the parties to file such objections has elapsed.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1) (C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F.Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff'd, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994).
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings, conclusions and recommendations, and giving de novo review to matters of law, the Court accepts the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge and the recommendation of the magistrate judge.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1) The report and recommendation of Mark A. Pizzo, United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 65) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED.
(2) Defendant's Motion to Suppress All Evidence Seized from Warrantless Search of His Home and for Return of Property (Doc. # 24) is GRANTED, except to the extent that it seeks return of seized cash that has been administratively forfeited.
DONE and ORDERED.
