U.S. v. PURDY, 2: 16-CR-005-R WS-JCF. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20161129f51
Visitors: 11
Filed: Nov. 28, 2016
Latest Update: Nov. 28, 2016
Summary: ORDER RICHARD W. STORY , District Judge . This case is before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [Doc. No. 31] of Magistrate Judge J. Clay Fuller. Afb05er reviewing the R&R and the Objections [Doc. No. 33] thereto, the R&R is received with approval and adopted as the Opinion and Order of this Court. The Court has reviewed, de novo, the issues raised by Defendant's objections. The points raised in the objections were fully addressed in the R&R. The Court ag
Summary: ORDER RICHARD W. STORY , District Judge . This case is before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [Doc. No. 31] of Magistrate Judge J. Clay Fuller. Afb05er reviewing the R&R and the Objections [Doc. No. 33] thereto, the R&R is received with approval and adopted as the Opinion and Order of this Court. The Court has reviewed, de novo, the issues raised by Defendant's objections. The points raised in the objections were fully addressed in the R&R. The Court agr..
More
ORDER
RICHARD W. STORY, District Judge.
This case is before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [Doc. No. 31] of Magistrate Judge J. Clay Fuller. Afb05er reviewing the R&R and the Objections [Doc. No. 33] thereto, the R&R is received with approval and adopted as the Opinion and Order of this Court.
The Court has reviewed, de novo, the issues raised by Defendant's objections. The points raised in the objections were fully addressed in the R&R. The Court agrees with Judge Fuller's conclusions that Defendant has not shown by "clear evidence" that he is similarly situated to persons who have not been prosecuted for alleged bid rigging related to public auctions of foreclosed properties. And, even if Defendant had made such a showing, he has not satisfied the "discriminatory effect" prong necessary to establish a selective prosecution defense.
Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 24] is DENIED, and his request for discovery and a hearing on his selective prosecution and enforcement claim is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
