OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN E. STEELE, District Judge.

On April 17, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier submitted a Report and Recommendation (Doc. #55) to the Court recommending that Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. #38) be denied. Defendant's Objections (Doc. #60) were filed on May 12, 2014.

I.

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); United States v. Powell, 628 F.3d 1254, 1256 (11th Cir. 2010). A district judge "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)(C). See also United States v. Farias-Gonzalez, 556 F.3d 1181, 1184 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009). This requires that the district judge "give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party." Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ. of Ga., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990)(quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-1609, 94th Cong., 2nd Sess, reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6162, 6163). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). A district court may not reject the credibility determinations of a magistrate judge without personally rehearing disputed testimony from the witness. Powell, 628 F.3d at 1256-58.

II.

Defendant argues that the magistrate judge erred (1) in finding that the initial contact between Deputy Clark and defendant was a consensual encounter, (2) in not finding that defendant had been illegally detained, and (3) by not considering the lack of evidence to support the officer's version of events. After reviewing the Report and Recommendation and the transcript of the evidentiary hearing (Doc. #50), the Court finds that the magistrate judge properly considered pertinent credibility factors and there are no reasons to disagree with the credibility findings of the magistrate judge. The Court fully agrees with the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the magistrate judge. Accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation and will deny the motion to suppress.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #55) is accepted and adopted, and it is specifically incorporated into this Opinion and Order.

2. Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. #38) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED.