U.S. v. CAMPA, CR 13-2142-TUC-JAS (JR). (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20140918712
Visitors: 20
Filed: Sep. 16, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 16, 2014
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. SOTO, District Judge. This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and the local rules of practice of this Court for hearing and report and recommendation on the Defendant's motion to suppress/dismiss. Magistrate Judge Rateau conducted a hearing on 8/12/14, and issued her Report and Recommendation on 8/27/14. A copy was sent to all parties. No objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation have been filed. An
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. SOTO, District Judge. This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and the local rules of practice of this Court for hearing and report and recommendation on the Defendant's motion to suppress/dismiss. Magistrate Judge Rateau conducted a hearing on 8/12/14, and issued her Report and Recommendation on 8/27/14. A copy was sent to all parties. No objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation have been filed. Any..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. SOTO, District Judge.
This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and the local rules of practice of this Court for hearing and report and recommendation on the Defendant's motion to suppress/dismiss.
Magistrate Judge Rateau conducted a hearing on 8/12/14, and issued her Report and Recommendation on 8/27/14. A copy was sent to all parties. No objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation have been filed. Any objections that have not been raised are waived and will not be addressed by the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
The Court, having made an independent review of the record, orders as follows:
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Rateau's Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED by this Court as the findings of fact and conclusions of law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion to suppress/dismiss is denied.
Source: Leagle
