United States v. Flores, CR-17-01471-001-TUC-JAS (LAB). (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20190703a54
Visitors: 14
Filed: Jul. 01, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 01, 2019
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. SOTO , District Judge . Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 64) 1 issued by United States Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman that recommends the Motion to Suppress (Doc. 42) be denied. A review of the record reflects that the parties have not filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation and the time to file objections has expired. As such, the Court will not consider any objections or new evidence. The Court has reviewed the record and conc
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. SOTO , District Judge . Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 64) 1 issued by United States Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman that recommends the Motion to Suppress (Doc. 42) be denied. A review of the record reflects that the parties have not filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation and the time to file objections has expired. As such, the Court will not consider any objections or new evidence. The Court has reviewed the record and concl..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. SOTO, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 64)1 issued by United States Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman that recommends the Motion to Suppress (Doc. 42) be denied. A review of the record reflects that the parties have not filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation and the time to file objections has expired. As such, the Court will not consider any objections or new evidence.
The Court has reviewed the record and concludes that Magistrate Judge Bowman's recommendations are not clearly erroneous. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b); Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
(1) Magistrate Judge Bowman's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 64) is accepted and adopted.
(2) The Motion to Suppress (Doc. 42) is denied.
FootNotes
1. Due to a clerical error the Report and Recommendation was filed both at Document 63 and Document 64. For efficiency the Court shall only refer to Document 64, as it was the last filed. This Order should be read as applying to the Report and Recommendation filed at Document 63.
Source: Leagle
