ORDER

TIMOTHY C. BATTEN, Sr., District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Albear Camerino's objections [72] to Magistrate Judge Walker's Report and Recommendation (the "R&R") [69], which recommends that Camerino's motion to suppress evidence from wiretaps [55] be denied.

A district judge has a duty to conduct a "careful and complete" review of a magistrate judge's R&R. Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 408 (5th Cir. 1982)).1 Where no objection to the R&R is made, it need only be reviewed for clear error. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).2 Where objections are made, a district judge "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge must "give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party." Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990).

"Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court." Nettles, 677 F.2d at 410 n.8. "This rule facilitates the opportunity for district judges to spend more time on matters actually contested and produces a result compatible with the purposes of the Magistrates Act." Id. at 410.

The district judge also has discretion to decline to consider arguments that were not raised before the magistrate judge. Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2009). Indeed, a contrary rule "would effectively nullify the magistrate judge's consideration of the matter and would not help to relieve the workload of the district court." Id. (quoting United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 622 (9th Cir. 2000)).

After conducting a complete and careful review of the R&R, the district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Williams, 681 F.2d at 732. The district judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

The Court has conducted a careful review of the R&R and Camerino's objections thereto. Having done so, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Walker's factual and legal conclusions were correct and that Camerino's objections have no merit.

In his objections, Camerino contends that the R&R improperly applied federal law to determine whether the wiretap evidence was admissible. Relying on United States v. Bascaro, 742 F.2d 1335 (11th Cir. 1984), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Lewis, 429 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2007), he asserts that state law should govern admissibility, and under Georgia law the wiretap evidence should be suppressed. However, this argument fails, as explained fully in the Court's order issued in No. 1:12-cr-331-TCB [docket entry 140], which addresses similar objections filed in response to the same R&R. Thus, the Court ADOPTS AS ITS ORDER the R&R [69] and DENIES Camerino's motion [55].

IT IS SO ORDERED.