United States v. Pendergrass, 1:17-cr-0224-AT-1. (2020)
Court: District Court, N.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20200213d52
Visitors: 4
Filed: Feb. 12, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: ORDER AMY TOTENBERG , District Judge . Presently before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") that this Court deny Defendant Allen J. Pendergrass's motion to dismiss Count Six [Doc. 146]. 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). The Court notes that no objections have been filed in response to the Magistrate Judge's Re
Summary: ORDER AMY TOTENBERG , District Judge . Presently before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") that this Court deny Defendant Allen J. Pendergrass's motion to dismiss Count Six [Doc. 146]. 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). The Court notes that no objections have been filed in response to the Magistrate Judge's Rep..
More
ORDER
AMY TOTENBERG, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") that this Court deny Defendant Allen J. Pendergrass's motion to dismiss Count Six [Doc. 146]. 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). The Court notes that no objections have been filed in response to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Therefore, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation for clear error and finds none.
Accordingly, the Court receives the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation with approval and hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation as the opinion of this Court [Doc. 146]. For the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss County Six [Doc. 131].
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
