ORDER

RICHARD W. STORY, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge J. Clay Fuller [Doc. No. 41].

In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, the district court "shall make a de novo 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). "Parties filing objections to a magistrate's report and recommendation 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, 847F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Absent objection, the district judge "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate [judge]," 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and "need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record" in order to accept the recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, advisory committee note, 1983 Edition, Subdivision (b). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the R&R to which Defendant objects and has reviewed the remainder of the R&R for plain error. See United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983).

Here, Defendant argues that the third exception to the Leon good faith rule applies. Specifically, Defendants argues that the warrant was so devoid of probable cause that an officer's belief in its existence is unreasonable. The Court disagrees and finds that even if probable cause did not exist to support the state search warrant for Defendant's DNA, the Lean good faith exception applies. The R&R [Doc. No. 41] is hereby approved and adopted as the opinion and order of this Court. Defendant's Motion to Suppress [Doc. No. 16] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.