Filed: Nov. 14, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 14, 2014
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, Jr., District Judge This matter appears before the Court for consideration of the magistrate judge's September 22, 2014 Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. No. [16]), in which the Honorable Alan J. Baverman, united states Magistrate Judge, recommended that Defendant's motion to suppress evidence (identifying information), [Doc. No. 13], be denied. The magistrate's decision was based upon the case of United States v. Farias-Gonzalez , 556 F.3d 1181 , 1189 (11th C
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, Jr., District Judge This matter appears before the Court for consideration of the magistrate judge's September 22, 2014 Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. No. [16]), in which the Honorable Alan J. Baverman, united states Magistrate Judge, recommended that Defendant's motion to suppress evidence (identifying information), [Doc. No. 13], be denied. The magistrate's decision was based upon the case of United States v. Farias-Gonzalez , 556 F.3d 1181 , 1189 (11th Ci..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, Jr., District Judge
This matter appears before the Court for consideration of the magistrate judge's September 22, 2014 Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. No. [16]), in which the Honorable Alan J. Baverman, united states Magistrate Judge, recommended that Defendant's motion to suppress evidence (identifying information), [Doc. No. 13], be denied. The magistrate's decision was based upon the case of United States v. Farias-Gonzalez, 556 F.3d 1181, 1189 (11th Cir. 2009) in which the Eleventh Circuit held that the exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence to establish a defendant's identity in a criminal prosecution.
On October 7, 2014, Defendant filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. [19]). Defendant objects to the Magistrate's recommendation on the ground that Farias-Gonzalez was wrongly decided and other circuits have held to the contrary.
When such objections are filed, the Court must "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). After conducting this review, the Court "may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Additionally, the Court may "receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id.
After de novo review, the Court accepts the recommendation of the magistrate and adopts the R&R as the order of the Court. As this Court is bound by Eleventh Circuit precedent, the Court overrules Defendant's objection based upon non-binding authority. See McGinley v. Houston, 361 F.3d 1328, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004) ("A circuit court's decision binds the district courts sitting within its jurisdiction. . . .").
CONCLUSION
After de novo review, the Court hereby ADOPTS the R&R (Doc. No. [16]) as the order of the Court. Defendant's objection (Doc. No. [19]) is hereby OVERRULED. The motion to suppress evidence (identifying information) (Doc. No. [13]) is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
