ORDER

ROSEMARY MÁRQUEZ, District Judge.

On October 23, 2019, Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 66) recommending that this Court deny Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Doc. 51). The Government did not file any objections to the Report and Recommendation. Defendant requested and was granted an extension of the deadline for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation (see Docs. 70, 71), but he nevertheless failed to file any objections, and the extended deadline for doing so has now expired.

A district judge must "make a de novo determination of those portions" of a magistrate judge's "report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The advisory committee's notes to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, "[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation" of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) ("If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error."); Prior v. Ryan, CV 10-225-TUC-RCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for clear error unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation).

The Court has reviewed Judge Bowman's Report and Recommendation, the parties' briefs, and the record. The Court finds no clear error in the Report and Recommendation. The Court notes that, had Defendant filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation, the fact pattern presented by the record in this case would have been viewed more stringently.

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 66) is accepted and adopted in full.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Doc. 51) is denied.