U.S. v. RECTOR, 3:12-CR-90-TAV-HBG. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. Tennessee
Number: infdco20140527977
Visitors: 52
Filed: May 22, 2014
Latest Update: May 22, 2014
Summary: ORDER THOMAS A. VARLAN, Chief District Judge. This criminal case is before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation entered by United States Magistrate Judge H. Bruce Guyton, on April 30, 2014 (the "R&R") [Doc. 165]. There have been no timely objections to the R&R and enough time has passed since the filing of the R&R to treat any objections as having been waived. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Fed. R. Crim. P. 51. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Guyton r
Summary: ORDER THOMAS A. VARLAN, Chief District Judge. This criminal case is before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation entered by United States Magistrate Judge H. Bruce Guyton, on April 30, 2014 (the "R&R") [Doc. 165]. There have been no timely objections to the R&R and enough time has passed since the filing of the R&R to treat any objections as having been waived. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Fed. R. Crim. P. 51. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Guyton re..
More
ORDER
THOMAS A. VARLAN, Chief District Judge.
This criminal case is before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation entered by United States Magistrate Judge H. Bruce Guyton, on April 30, 2014 (the "R&R") [Doc. 165]. There have been no timely objections to the R&R and enough time has passed since the filing of the R&R to treat any objections as having been waived. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Fed. R. Crim. P. 51. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Guyton recommends that an order be entered denying the defendant's Motion to Suppress Alleged Statements of Defendant Rector [Doc. 100] be denied.
After a review of the R&R and the record in this case, the Court is in agreement with Magistrate Judge Guyton's recommendation, which the Court adopts and incorporates into its ruling. Thus, the Court ACCEPTS IN WHOLE the R&R [Doc. 165] and it is ORDERED that the defendant's motion to suppress [Doc. 100] is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
