U.S. v. DOUGLAS, 11-CR-3044-LRR. (2012)
Court: District Court, N.D. Iowa
Number: infdco20120328c03
Visitors: 9
Filed: Mar. 27, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 27, 2012
Summary: ORDER LINDA R. READE, Chief District Judge. The matter before the court is Magistrate Judge Jon S. Scoles's Report and Recommendation (docket no. 62), which recommends that the court deny Defendant Christopher David Douglas's amended "Motion to Suppress Statements" ("Motion") (docket no. 24). The Report and Recommendation states that, "within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections with the district c
Summary: ORDER LINDA R. READE, Chief District Judge. The matter before the court is Magistrate Judge Jon S. Scoles's Report and Recommendation (docket no. 62), which recommends that the court deny Defendant Christopher David Douglas's amended "Motion to Suppress Statements" ("Motion") (docket no. 24). The Report and Recommendation states that, "within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections with the district co..
More
ORDER
LINDA R. READE, Chief District Judge.
The matter before the court is Magistrate Judge Jon S. Scoles's Report and Recommendation (docket no. 62), which recommends that the court deny Defendant Christopher David Douglas's amended "Motion to Suppress Statements" ("Motion") (docket no. 24).
The Report and Recommendation states that, "within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections with the district court." Report and Recommendation at 22. The time to object to the Report and Recommendation has expired and Defendant has not filed any objections. Defendant has thus waived his right to de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. See, e.g., United States v. Newton, 259 F.3d 964, 966 (8th Cir. 2001) ("`Appellant's failure to file any objections waived his right to de novo review by the district court of any portion of the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge as well as his right to appeal from the findings of fact contained therein.'" (quoting Griffini v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1994))). The court finds no plain error in Judge Scoles's decision. Thus, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. The Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
