Filed: Sep. 08, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 08, 2016
Summary: ORDER ELEANOR L. ROSS , District Judge . This case is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") issued by Magistrate Judge Baverman. (Doc. 364). The Court's rulings and conclusions are set forth below. I. Background Defendant Gustavo Adolpho Ramirez-Reyes, along with several co-defendants, has been charged in a multiple count indictment for drug distribution. Defendant filed a motion to suppress geo-location evidence (Doc. 261), specifically, historical cell site data abou
Summary: ORDER ELEANOR L. ROSS , District Judge . This case is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") issued by Magistrate Judge Baverman. (Doc. 364). The Court's rulings and conclusions are set forth below. I. Background Defendant Gustavo Adolpho Ramirez-Reyes, along with several co-defendants, has been charged in a multiple count indictment for drug distribution. Defendant filed a motion to suppress geo-location evidence (Doc. 261), specifically, historical cell site data about..
More
ORDER
ELEANOR L. ROSS, District Judge.
This case is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") issued by Magistrate Judge Baverman. (Doc. 364). The Court's rulings and conclusions are set forth below.
I. Background
Defendant Gustavo Adolpho Ramirez-Reyes, along with several co-defendants, has been charged in a multiple count indictment for drug distribution. Defendant filed a motion to suppress geo-location evidence (Doc. 261), specifically, historical cell site data about his cell phone which the Government obtained by a court order. Although Ramirez recognizes that the law as set forth in United States v. Davis, 785 F.3d 498 (11th Cir. 2015) (en bane), allows for the collection of such evidence without the necessity of a search warrant supported by challenge should the Supreme Court disagree with Davis.
II. Standard of Review
The district court reviewing an R&R "shall make a de nova 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). If neither party objects, the district judge need only review the R&R for clear error and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. A party objecting to an R&R "must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court." United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1361 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
III. R&R on Defendants' Motions to Suppress (Doc. 43)
Magistrate Judge Baverman issued an R&R recommending that Defendant's motion to suppress be denied and reiterating that the Davis case controls. The Court, having reviewed the R&R for clear error, agrees with Judge Baverman's recommendation, to which there has been no objection. Thus, the Court adopts the R & R as the opinion of this Court.
V. Conclusion
The Court ADOPTS the R & R (Doc. 364) and DENIES Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Doc. 261).
SO ORDERED.
