ORDER

AMY TOTENBERG, District Judge.

Presently before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [Doc. 35] recommending that the Court deny Defendant Grant Kidd's motion and perfected motion to suppress his January 14, 2016, statement. The Defendant filed objections to the R&R [Doc. 37].

A district judge has broad discretion to accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 680 (1980). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court reviews any portion of the R&R that is the subject of a proper objection on a de novo basis and any non-objected portion on a "clearly erroneous" standard. The Defendant objected on numerous grounds to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court has reviewed the record in this case on a de novo basis.

After an independent de novo review of the record, the Court agrees with the overall facts, findings, and legal analysis of the Magistrate Judge's R&R. Defendant Kidd's disagreements with some of the R&R's findings do not undermine the validity of the analysis in the R&R. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Defendant's objections [Doc. 37], ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R&R [Doc. 35], and DENIES Defendant's motion and perfected motion to suppress his statement [Docs. 15 and 26].

Trial is hereby set to begin on January 29, 2018, at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 2308. The pretrial conference will be held on January 24, 2018, at 2:30 PM in Courtroom 2308. By 3:00 PM on January 12, 2018, the parties are to file the following: motions in limine and proposed voir dire questions. By 3:00 PM on January 12, 2018, the Government must file a brief summary of the indictment that the parties can rely on for voir dire. By 3:00 PM on January 19, 2018, the parties are to file any objections to those items listed above. The time to January 29, 2018, shall be excluded from computation under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), (B)(i), and (B)(iv). Failure to grant this continuance would likely result in a miscarriage of justice and would deny counsel for both sides the reasonable time necessary to effectively prepare for trial, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court finds that the ends of justice are served by granting this continuance and are consistent with both the best interest of the public and individual justice in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.