ORDER ADOPTING AND INCORPORATING BY REFERENCE THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ELIZABETH A. KOVACHEVICH, District Judge.

The Defendant, Jorge Eduardo Miranda, filed a motion to suppress evidence (the "Motion") (Doc. No. 61). At this Court's request, United States Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli submitted a Report and Recommendation (the "Report") (Doc. No. 95) detailing (1) his findings of fact, (2) conclusions of law, and (3) final recommendation. Judge Porcelli, in a thorough and deliberate opinion, recommends that this Court deny the Motion to Suppress. Report, Doc. No. 95 at 18. After reviewing the Motion, Report, and the relevant evidence1, the Court concurs with Judge Porcelli's Report. Accordingly, Mr. Miranda's motion to suppress is DENIED.

Under the Federal Magistrate's Act ("Act"), Congress vested Article III judges with the power to "designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court," subject to various exceptions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The Act further vests magistrate judges with authority to "submit to the judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition" by an Article III judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). "Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of a magistrate's report and recommendation], any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On review by the district court, "the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made." Id. When no timely and specific objections are filed, case law indicates the court should review the findings using a clearly erroneous standard. Gropp v. United Airlines, Inc., 817 F.Supp. 1558, 1562 (M.D. Fla. 1993).

Mr. Miranda posited that law enforcement officers (1) engaged in an unlawful investigatory stop, (2) obtained his consent to search invalidly and unlawfully searched his home and vehicle, and (3) violated his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Motion, Doc. No. 61 at 3. Judge Porcelli's findings of fact accurately reflected the testimony of the witnesses and exhibits received into evidence. See Exhibits, Doc. No. 67. In addition to the questioning of the lawyers, Judge Porcelli inquired of the witnesses, clarified factual issues, and properly received relevant evidence that supported his factual findings in the Report.

The Report enunciates the correct legal standards for each argument advanced by Mr. Miranda in his Motion, and appropriately applied the evidence and testimony to each argument. The Court expressly adopts Judge Porcelli's reasoning, factual findings, and reasoning contained in the Report. Judge Porcelli applied the correct law to this case, and his factual findings applied to the law are not clearly erroneous, and would even survive de novo review. The Report is an accurate and well-reasoned opinion that arrives at the correct legal conclusion to this case: the Motion should be denied.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report is ADOPTED AND INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE. Mr. Miranda's Motion is DENIED. The Court commends Judge Porcelli for the preparation and submission of his thorough and reasoned opinion.