USA v. JACK, 1:17-cr-00037-JAW. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Maine
Number: infdco20171205a18
Visitors: 6
Filed: Dec. 04, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 04, 2017
Summary: ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. , District Judge . The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on October 18, 2017 his Recommended Decision (ECF No. 62). The Defendant filed his objection to the Recommended Decision on November 1, 2017 (ECF No. 63). I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by t
Summary: ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. , District Judge . The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on October 18, 2017 his Recommended Decision (ECF No. 62). The Defendant filed his objection to the Recommended Decision on November 1, 2017 (ECF No. 63). I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by th..
More
ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR., District Judge.
The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on October 18, 2017 his Recommended Decision (ECF No. 62). The Defendant filed his objection to the Recommended Decision on November 1, 2017 (ECF No. 63). I have reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Decision; and I concur with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in his Recommended Decision, and determine that no further proceeding is necessary.
1. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 62) be and hereby is AFFIRMED.
2. It is further ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion to Suppress (ECF No. 39) be and hereby is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
