USA v. Kargas, CR 16-01423-TUC-JAS (JR). (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20171215853
Visitors: 11
Filed: Dec. 13, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 13, 2017
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. SOTO , District Judge . Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau. In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Rateau recommends the the District Court DENY Defendant Brown's Motion to Suppress Evidence Due to Illegal Checkpoint, (Doc. 92). As the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation appropriately resolved the Defendant Brown's Motion to Suppress Evidence Due to Illegal Checkpoint, (Doc. 92), the o
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. SOTO , District Judge . Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau. In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Rateau recommends the the District Court DENY Defendant Brown's Motion to Suppress Evidence Due to Illegal Checkpoint, (Doc. 92). As the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation appropriately resolved the Defendant Brown's Motion to Suppress Evidence Due to Illegal Checkpoint, (Doc. 92), the ob..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. SOTO, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau. In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Rateau recommends the the District Court DENY Defendant Brown's Motion to Suppress Evidence Due to Illegal Checkpoint, (Doc. 92). As the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation appropriately resolved the Defendant Brown's Motion to Suppress Evidence Due to Illegal Checkpoint, (Doc. 92), the objections are denied.1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
(1) Magistrate Judge Rateau's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 119) is accepted and adopted.
(2) Defendant Brown's Motion to Suppress Evidence Due to Illegal Checkpoint, (Doc. 92), is denied.
FootNotes
1. The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b). The Court reviews for clear error the unobjected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. See Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998).
Source: Leagle
