ORDER

CINDY K. JORGENSON, District Judge.

On November 28, 2017, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 57) in which she recommended the Motion to Suppress Statements and Evidence for Fourth Amendment Violation (Doc. 29) be denied. On December 1, 2017, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 58) in which she recommended the Motion in Limine to Admit Defendant's Statements to Tucson Police (Doc. 43) be granted and the Motion to Suppress Statement for Miranda Violation (Doc. 58) be denied.1 The Reports and Recommendations notified the parties they had 14 days from the dates of the Reports and Recommendations to file any objections.

No objections have been filed. Additionally, although a new attorney has been appointed to represent Defendant Carlos Gomez-Robles, no extension of the time in which to file any objection has been requested.

The standard of review that is applied to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation is dependent upon whether a party files objections — the Court need not review portions of a report to which a party does not object. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). However, the Court must "determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Nonetheless, "while the statute does not require the judge to review an issue de novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard." Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154.

The Court has reviewed and considered the pending motions (Docs. 29, 43, and 58), the responses (Docs. 36, 46, 54,), the replies (Docs. 44, 45) the transcript of the hearing (Doc. 52) before the magistrate judge, the exhibits, and the Reports and Recommendations (Docs. 57, 58).

Accordingly, after an independent review, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The November 28, 2017 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 57) is ADOPTED.

2. The Motion to Suppress Statements and Evidence for Fourth Amendment Violation (Doc. 29) is DENIED.

3. The December 1, 2017 Report and Recommendation, as corrected (Doc. 58) is ADOPTED.

4. The Motion in Limine to Admit Defendant's Statements to Tucson Police (Doc. 43) is GRANTED.

5. The Motion to Suppress Statements for Miranda Violations (Doc. 53) is DENIED.