Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

USA v. McCray, 1:17-CR-138-MHC-RGV. (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. Georgia Number: infdco20180112a27 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jan. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 11, 2018
Summary: ORDER MARK H. COHEN , District Judge . This case is before the Court on the Final Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge [Doc. 33] recommending that Defendant's Motion to Quash Indictment or, in the Alternative, to Dismiss All Charges Filed Against the Defendant [Doc. 25] be denied. The Order for Service of the R&R [Doc. 34] provided notice that, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1), the parties were authorized to file objections within fourteen (14) days of the receipt of th
More

ORDER

This case is before the Court on the Final Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge [Doc. 33] recommending that Defendant's Motion to Quash Indictment or, in the Alternative, to Dismiss All Charges Filed Against the Defendant [Doc. 25] be denied. The Order for Service of the R&R [Doc. 34] provided notice that, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties were authorized to file objections within fourteen (14) days of the receipt of that Order. See also FED. R. CRIM. P. 59(a). No objections have been filed to the Report and Recommendation. Absent objection, the district court judge "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistratejudge," 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2012). The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds no clear error and that the R&R is supported by law.

The Court APPROVES AND ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 33] as the judgment of the Court. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Quash Indictment or, in the Alternative, to Dismiss All Charges Filed Against the Defendant [Doc. 25] is DENIED.

It is further ORDERED that the time between the date the Magistrate Judge certified Defendant ready for trial on December 1, 2017, and the issuance of this Order, shall be excluded in calculating the date on which the trial of this case must commence under the Speedy Trial Act because the Court finds that the delay is for good cause, and the interests of justice in considering Defendant's objections to the Report and Recommendation outweigh the right of the public and the right of the defendant to a speedy trial, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer