ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS [R. 266, R. 278]

CLARIA HORN BOOM, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the motion of Defendant Carlos Catalan to join Defendant Gonzalez's Motion to Suppress. [R. 266] The United States responded in opposition [R. 268] The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge King for Report and Recommendation ("R & R") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. [R. 273] Judge King construed the defendant's motion as an independent motion to suppress and ordered further briefing. [R. 274] The United States and Defendant Catalan filed supplemental briefs. [R. 276, R. 278] In Judge King's R & R, he found that Defendant Catalan lacked standing to challenge the search in question and recommended that this Court deny his motion to suppress. [R. 282] For the reasons stated herein, the Court adopts Judge King's R & R and denies the defendant's motion.

The R & R instructed the parties to file any specific written objections within fourteen days of the R & R or else waive the right to further review. Id. at p. 6. The time for objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation has now run, with no objections filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Because no party has objected to the R & R, the Court may adopt it without review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) ("It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge's] factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings."). Nevertheless, the Court has conducted its own review of the record and finds no error in the Magistrate Judge King's R & R. The Court is satisfied that Defendant Catalan lacked standing to challenge the search of the truck. When law enforcement entered the property and approached the semi-truck, Co-Defendant Argueta was alone in the truck with the engine still running, having just arrived on the property. [R. 276, at p.2] At the time the search was conducted, Co-Defendant Argueta had not yet delivered the truck or the key to Defendant Catalan. Id. The Court therefore agrees with the Magistrate Judge's findings that at the time of the search, the defendant "did not own the truck, drive the truck, ride in the truck, or possess or control the truck." [R. 282, at p. 6] He therefore has no basis to challenge the search that was conducted on the semi-truck in question. Accordingly, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [R. 282] is ADOPTED as the Opinion of this Court.

2. The Court DENIES the Joinder of Defendant Carlos Catalan in Support to Motion to Suppress Illegal Evidence [R. 266] and Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum of Defendant Carlos Catalan in Support of his Motion to Suppress Illegal Evidence [R. 278].