U.S. v. McGHEE, 1:16-CR-0015-AT-JSA-25. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20170504c52
Visitors: 7
Filed: May 02, 2017
Latest Update: May 02, 2017
Summary: ORDER AMY TOTENBERG , District Judge . Presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [Doc. 585] recommending that the Court deny Defendant Cassaundra McGhee's motion to suppress [Doc. 360]. The Defendant has filed objections to the R&R [Doc. 596]. A district judge has broad discretion to accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 , 680 (1980). Pursuant
Summary: ORDER AMY TOTENBERG , District Judge . Presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [Doc. 585] recommending that the Court deny Defendant Cassaundra McGhee's motion to suppress [Doc. 360]. The Defendant has filed objections to the R&R [Doc. 596]. A district judge has broad discretion to accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 , 680 (1980). Pursuant t..
More
ORDER
AMY TOTENBERG, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [Doc. 585] recommending that the Court deny Defendant Cassaundra McGhee's motion to suppress [Doc. 360]. The Defendant has filed objections to the R&R [Doc. 596].
A district judge has broad discretion to accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 680 (1980). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court reviews any portion of the R&R that is the subject of a proper objection on a de nova basis and any non-objected portion on a "clearly erroneous" standard. The Defendant objects on numerous grounds to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. In particular, the Defendant objects to these findings reached by the Magistrate Judge:
• that there is no evidence contradicting the testimony of Agent Hosty that he requested Defendant speak with him or other agents; and
• that Defendant's statement was voluntary.
Accordingly, the Court has reviewed the record in this case on a de novo basis. After an independent de novo review of the record, the Court finds that the R&R is correct with respect to its determinations that Defendant was not in custody at the time of the interview and that she offered the statement voluntarily. Defendant has not met her burden of demonstrating that she had been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of her ability to act freely. Further, it does not appear from the evidence in the record that Defendant's statement was in any way coerced or her free will suppressed by the circumstances of the interview. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Defendant's objections [Doc. 596], ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R&R [Doc. 585], and DENIES Defendant's Motions to Suppress [Doc. 360].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
