U.S. v. Balogun, 1:16-CR-0127-AT. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20180227922
Visitors: 11
Filed: Feb. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 26, 2018
Summary: ORDER AMY TOTENBERG , District Judge . Presently before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that this Court deny Defendant Abiola Tope Balogun's motion to dismiss for pre-indictment delay and motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to satisfy the indictment requirement of the 5th Amendment [Doc. 60]. The Defendant has filed objections to the R&R [Doc. 64]. A district judge has broad discretion to accept, reject, or modify a magistrate ju
Summary: ORDER AMY TOTENBERG , District Judge . Presently before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that this Court deny Defendant Abiola Tope Balogun's motion to dismiss for pre-indictment delay and motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to satisfy the indictment requirement of the 5th Amendment [Doc. 60]. The Defendant has filed objections to the R&R [Doc. 64]. A district judge has broad discretion to accept, reject, or modify a magistrate jud..
More
ORDER
AMY TOTENBERG, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that this Court deny Defendant Abiola Tope Balogun's motion to dismiss for pre-indictment delay and motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to satisfy the indictment requirement of the 5th Amendment [Doc. 60]. The Defendant has filed objections to the R&R [Doc. 64].
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 finds that the R&R is correct and that the Defendant's objections lack merit. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Defendant's objections [Doc. 64]; ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R&R [Doc. 60]; and DENIES Defendant's Motions to Dismiss [Docs. 15, 23, 51].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
