Filed: Jul. 07, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 07, 2014
Summary: ORDER TIMOTHY C. BATTEN, Sr., District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendant Franklin Latimore's objections [85] to Magistrate Judge Baverman's Report and Recommendation (the "R&R") [22, 41], which recommends denying Latimore's motions to suppress. A district judge has a duty to conduct a "careful and complete" review of a magistrate judge's R&R. Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 , 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 , 408 (5th Cir. 1982))
Summary: ORDER TIMOTHY C. BATTEN, Sr., District Judge. This matter is before the Court on Defendant Franklin Latimore's objections [85] to Magistrate Judge Baverman's Report and Recommendation (the "R&R") [22, 41], which recommends denying Latimore's motions to suppress. A district judge has a duty to conduct a "careful and complete" review of a magistrate judge's R&R. Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 , 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 , 408 (5th Cir. 1982))...
More
ORDER
TIMOTHY C. BATTEN, Sr., District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Franklin Latimore's objections [85] to Magistrate Judge Baverman's Report and Recommendation (the "R&R") [22, 41], which recommends denying Latimore's motions to suppress.
A district judge has a duty to conduct a "careful and complete" review of a magistrate judge's R&R. Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 408 (5th Cir. 1982)).1 Where no objection to the R&R is made, it need only be reviewed for clear error. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir.2006).2 Where objections are made, 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)(I)(C). The district judge must "give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party." Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. ofEduc., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990).
"Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court." Nettles, 677 F.2d at 410 n.8. "This rule facilitates the opportunity for district judges to spend more time on matters actually contested and produces a result compatible with the purposes of the Magistrates Act." Id. at 410. The district judge also has discretion to decline to consider arguments that were not raised before the magistrate judge. Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2009). Indeed, a contrary rule "would effectively nullify the magistrate judge's consideration of the matter and would not help to relieve the workload of the district court." Id. (quoting United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 622 (9th Cir. 2000)).
After conducting a complete and careful review of the R&R, the district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Williams, 681 F.2d at 732. The district judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
The Court has conducted a careful review of the R&R and Latimore's objections thereto. Having done so, the Court finds that the R&R's factual and legal conclusions were correct and that Latimore's objections have no merit. Specifically, the duration of the March 4, 2013 traffic stop was objectively reasonable, and Latimore's consent to search his car on March 4 was voluntary. The R&R also properly assessed the credibility of the officer who initiated the March 4 stop. Finally, the good-faith exception under United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 913 (1984), applies to the July 18, 2013 search warrant and the fruits thereof do not have to be suppressed.
Thus, the Court ADOPTS AS ITS ORDER the R&R [78] and DENIES Latimore's motions to suppress [22, 41].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
