U.S. v. CAPOTE, 1:15-CR-338-4-MHC. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20160601985
Visitors: 11
Filed: May 31, 2016
Latest Update: May 31, 2016
Summary: ORDER MARK H. COHEN , District Judge . This action comes before the Court on the Final Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas [Doc. 98] that Defendant s Motion to Suppress [Doc. 64] be denied. The Order for Service of the R&R [Doc. 99] provided notice that, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), the parties were authorized to file objections within fourteen (14) days of the receipt of that Order. See also FED. R. CRM. P. 59(a). No objections have be
Summary: ORDER MARK H. COHEN , District Judge . This action comes before the Court on the Final Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas [Doc. 98] that Defendant s Motion to Suppress [Doc. 64] be denied. The Order for Service of the R&R [Doc. 99] provided notice that, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), the parties were authorized to file objections within fourteen (14) days of the receipt of that Order. See also FED. R. CRM. P. 59(a). No objections have bee..
More
ORDER
MARK H. COHEN, District Judge.
This action comes before the Court on the Final Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas [Doc. 98] that Defendant§s Motion to Suppress [Doc. 64] be denied. The Order for Service of the R&R [Doc. 99] provided notice that, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties were authorized to file objections within fourteen (14) days of the receipt of that Order. See also FED. R. CRM. P. 59(a). No objections have been filed to the R&R.
Absent objection, the district court judge "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). Based upon the absence of objections to the R&R, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has reviewed the R&R for plain error. See United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983). The Court finds no clear error and that the R&R is supported by law.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R [Doc. 98] as the Opinion and Order of the Court. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant§s Motion to Suppress [Doc. 64] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
