Filed: Jul. 12, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 12, 2018
Summary: ORDER MARK H. COHEN , District Judge . This action comes before the Court on the Final Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand [Doc. 40] recommending that Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence filed on April 4, 2018 [Doc. 29] be denied. The Order for Service of the R&R [Doc. 41] 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. No objections h
Summary: ORDER MARK H. COHEN , District Judge . This action comes before the Court on the Final Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand [Doc. 40] recommending that Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence filed on April 4, 2018 [Doc. 29] be denied. The Order for Service of the R&R [Doc. 41] 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. No objections ha..
More
ORDER
MARK H. COHEN, District Judge.
This action comes before the Court on the Final Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand [Doc. 40] recommending that Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence filed on April 4, 2018 [Doc. 29] be denied. The Order for Service of the R&R [Doc. 41] 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. No objections have been filed within the time permitted.
Absent objection, the district court judge "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge," 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Based upon the absence of objections to the R&R, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has reviewed the R&R for plain error. See United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983). The Court finds no clear error and that the R&R is supported by law.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the R&R [Doc. 40] as the Opinion and Order of the Court. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence [Doc. 29] is DENIED.
However, on June 27, 2018, after this case was certified as ready for trial, Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress Cell Cite Location Evidence [Doc. 44], based upon the Supreme Court's recent decision in Carpenter v. United States, 138 S.Ct. 2206 (2018). Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is DECERTIFIED AS READY FOR TRIAL and REMANDED to the Magistrate Judge for consideration of Defendant's new motion to suppress.
It is further ORDERED that the time between the date the Magistrate Judge certified Defendant ready for trial on June 20, 2018 [Doc. 43], 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 providing Defendant with consideration of his newly filed motion to suppress 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.
