OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN E. STEELE, District Judge.

On September 25, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier submitted a Report and Recommendation (Doc. #62) to the Court recommending that Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Doc. #32) be denied. Defendant filed an Objection to Report and Recommendation (Doc. #63) on October 8, 2014. For the reasons set forth below, the objections are overruled and the Motion to Suppress is denied.

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). 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. 1609, 94th Cong., § 2 (1976)). 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 objects to the following findings by the magistrate judge: (1) that law enforcement officers did not exceed the scope of the private search that occurred on August 27, 2013, and related credibility findings; (2) that Renee Nordean was mistaken on one portion of her testimony; and (3) that there was probable cause as to the search warrant for the hard drive and eMachine computer. After reviewing the Report and Recommendation, the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, and the exhibits, as well as the submissions by the parties, 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. #62) is accepted and adopted, and it is specifically incorporated into this Opinion and Order.

3. Defendant's Objection to Report and Recommendation (Doc. #63) is overruled.

2. Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Doc. #32) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED.