Filed: Aug. 06, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 06, 2015
Summary: ORDER MARTIN REIDINGER , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to Suppress [Doc. 14]; the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation regarding that motion [Doc. 24]; and the Defendant's Objections to the Magistrate Court's Recommendation [Doc. 25]. On June 25, 2015, the Honorable David C. Keesler, United States Magistrate Judge, conducted an evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress. On July 20, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Memorandum
Summary: ORDER MARTIN REIDINGER , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to Suppress [Doc. 14]; the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation regarding that motion [Doc. 24]; and the Defendant's Objections to the Magistrate Court's Recommendation [Doc. 25]. On June 25, 2015, the Honorable David C. Keesler, United States Magistrate Judge, conducted an evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress. On July 20, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Memorandum ..
More
ORDER
MARTIN REIDINGER, District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to Suppress [Doc. 14]; the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation regarding that motion [Doc. 24]; and the Defendant's Objections to the Magistrate Court's Recommendation [Doc. 25].
On June 25, 2015, the Honorable David C. Keesler, United States Magistrate Judge, conducted an evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress. On July 20, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Memorandum and Recommendation, recommending that the motion to suppress be denied. [Doc. 24]. The Defendant timely filed Objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation on August 3, 2015. [Doc. 25].
Upon conducting a de novo review of the Memorandum and Recommendation, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's proposed findings of fact are correct and that the proposed conclusions of law are consistent with current case law. Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the Defendant's Motion to Suppress be denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant's Objections to the Magistrate Court's Recommendation [Doc. 25] are OVERRULED; the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 24] is ACCEPTED; and the Motion to Suppress [Doc. 14] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
