ORDER

ELEANOR L. ROSS, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court for consideration of Magistrate Judge Janet F. King's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 87) which denies Defendant's motion (Doc. 61) for a Franks1 hearing and recommends denial of Defendant's motion (Doc. 61) to suppress the fruits of two search warrants executed at his Villa Rica, Georgia residence. In the time period allotted for the parties to object to the R&R, Defendant, by and through counsel, filed objections (Doc. 89) to the R&R. For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS the R&R and OVERRULES Defendant's objections.

I. Standard of Review

The district court reviewing an R&R "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). If neither party objects, the district judge need only review the R&R for clear error and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. A party objecting to an R&R "must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court." United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1361 (11th Cir. 209) (quoting Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1998)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

II. Discussion

The Court has conducted a careful review of the R&R and Defendant's objections thereto. With respect to the federal search warrant signed on July 9, 2015 and executed July 14, 2015, the Court agrees with Judge King that Defendant has not raised any new arguments that would change the Court's rulings or reasoning articulated in Judge King's prior R&R (Doc. 33) and adopted by order of the undersigned (Doc. 39). The Court also finds that Judge King's factual and legal conclusions as to the 2014 search of Defendant's residence as well as the search of Defendant's cellular phone were correct and that Defendant's objections lack merit.

Accordingly, the Court APDOPTS AS ITS ORDER the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 87).

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's objections (Doc. 89) to Judge King's R&R are OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the R&R (Doc. 87) as the opinion of this Court; and DENIES Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. 61).

The Defendant is DIRECTED to advise the Court if a plea of guilty will be entered or if this case will proceed to trial by January 9, 2017. The Court having found that the ends of justice by taking such action, outweigh the best interest of the public and Defendant in a speedy trial, DIRECTS THE CLERK to exclude the period of delay from computation under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to Title 18, U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(7)(A).

SO ORDERED.