U.S. v. HOLLEY, 4:12CR29. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
Number: infdco20140530f42
Visitors: 14
Filed: May 29, 2014
Latest Update: May 29, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD A. SCHELL, District Judge. Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this matter having been heretofore referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636. On May 21, 2014, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations that Defendant's Motion to Suppress (With Warrant) — No. 1 (
Summary: MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD A. SCHELL, District Judge. Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this matter having been heretofore referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636. On May 21, 2014, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations that Defendant's Motion to Suppress (With Warrant) — No. 1 (D..
More
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
RICHARD A. SCHELL, District Judge.
Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this matter having been heretofore referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636. On May 21, 2014, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations that Defendant's Motion to Suppress (With Warrant) — No. 1 (Dkt. 69) and Defendant's Motion to Suppress (With Warrant) — No. 2 (Dkt. 71) be DENIED.
The court, having made a de novo review of the objections raised by Defendant, is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the objections of Defendant are without merit.1 Therefore, the court hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of this court. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Suppress (With Warrant) — No. 1 (Dkt. 69) and Defendant's Motion to Suppress (With Warrant) — No. 2 (Dkt. 71) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The parties agreed to shorten the time period to object to the report.
Source: Leagle
