U.S. v. YOUNG, 12-CR-101. (2013)
Court: District Court, W.D. New York
Number: infdco20130806a61
Visitors: 8
Filed: Aug. 05, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 05, 2013
Summary: DECISION AND ORDER RICHARD J. ARCARA, District Judge. The above-referenced case was referred to Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr. pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Schroeder issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that defendant Calvin Young's motion claiming that his arrest was without probable cause and for suppression of electronic eavesdropping evidence be denied in its entirety. The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the recor
Summary: DECISION AND ORDER RICHARD J. ARCARA, District Judge. The above-referenced case was referred to Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr. pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Schroeder issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that defendant Calvin Young's motion claiming that his arrest was without probable cause and for suppression of electronic eavesdropping evidence be denied in its entirety. The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record..
More
DECISION AND ORDER
RICHARD J. ARCARA, District Judge.
The above-referenced case was referred to Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr. pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B). Magistrate Judge Schroeder issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that defendant Calvin Young's motion claiming that his arrest was without probable cause and for suppression of electronic eavesdropping evidence be denied in its entirety.
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the record in this case, and the pleadings and materials submitted by the parties, and no objections having been timely filed1, it is hereby
ORDERED, that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1), and for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Schroeder's Report and Recommendation, defendant Calvin Young's motion claiming that his arrest was without probable cause and for suppression of electronic eavesdropping evidence is denied.
The parties shall appear before the Court on August 6, 2013 at 12:30 p.m. for a status conference or meeting to set a trial date.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Defendant Young filed numerous motions requesting an extension of time to file objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Court granted defendant's motions, however, no objections were timely filed. Thus, the Court deems the matter submitted without objections.
Source: Leagle
