U.S. v. JOHNSON, 13-7 (MJD/LIB). (2013)
Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
Number: infdco20130411a72
Visitors: 8
Filed: Apr. 09, 2013
Latest Update: Apr. 09, 2013
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL J. DAVIS, Chief District Judge. The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois dated March 7, 2013. [Docket No. 37] Defendant Gordon Dean Johnson filed objections to the Report and Recommendation as it relates to the Defendant's statements to Officer Petschl. Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review upon the record. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based upon t
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL J. DAVIS, Chief District Judge. The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois dated March 7, 2013. [Docket No. 37] Defendant Gordon Dean Johnson filed objections to the Report and Recommendation as it relates to the Defendant's statements to Officer Petschl. Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review upon the record. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based upon th..
More
ORDER
MICHAEL J. DAVIS, Chief District Judge.
The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois dated March 7, 2013. [Docket No. 37] Defendant Gordon Dean Johnson filed objections to the Report and Recommendation as it relates to the Defendant's statements to Officer Petschl.
Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review upon the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based upon that review, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Brisbois dated March 7, 2013.
Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Brisbois dated March 7, 2013 [Docket No. 37].
2. Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements, Admissions, and Answers [Docket No. 15], and Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained as a Result of Search and Seizure [Docket No. 16] are DENIED.
Source: Leagle
