REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GRAY M. BORDEN, Magistrate Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

The defendant, William Brian James, was charged by felony Information on November 3, 2015, with using electronic mail and internet websites to cause "substantial emotional distress to the victim and place[] her in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury" in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(A). (Doc. 1) Pending before this Court is the Government's Oral Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6).

The Court held a hearing on November 12, 2015, during which James made his initial appearance on the charge in the Information. See Doc. 6. Based on the representations made to the Court during that hearing, and for the reasons set forth herein, the undersigned Magistrate Judge recommends that the Government's Oral Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) be GRANTED.

II. DISCUSSION

On November 12, 2015, this Court held a hearing during which the Court advised James of his right to indictment by a Grand Jury, and James invoked this right. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 7(b). On the basis of James' refusal to waive his right to Grand Jury indictment, the Government orally moved to dismiss the Information. James, through counsel, indicated he has no objection to the Government's motion. The court finds that the Government's proffered basis for dismissing the Information is appropriate and in the interests of justice, and thus recommends the Government be granted leave to dismiss the Information pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 48(a).

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that the Government be given leave to dismiss the Information, that the Government's Oral Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) be GRANTED, and that the Information be dismissed without prejudice.

It is further ORDERED that the parties file any objections to this Recommendation on or before November 30, 2015. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982); see Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982); see also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en banc) (adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981).