U.S. v. Davis, 12-cr-20462. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20180928892
Visitors: 11
Filed: Sep. 14, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 14, 2018
Summary: PAUL D. BORMAN , District Judge . On August 14, 2018, Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen issued a Report & Recommendation (ECF No. 114) in which he recommended that the Defendant's Motion Seeking Reconsideration of Restitution-Clarifying Payment (ECF No. 106) be DENIED. In the Report and Recommendation, the parties were advised that any objections must be filed within fourteen days of service of a copy as provided for in 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2) and that failure to fi
Summary: PAUL D. BORMAN , District Judge . On August 14, 2018, Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen issued a Report & Recommendation (ECF No. 114) in which he recommended that the Defendant's Motion Seeking Reconsideration of Restitution-Clarifying Payment (ECF No. 106) be DENIED. In the Report and Recommendation, the parties were advised that any objections must be filed within fourteen days of service of a copy as provided for in 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2) and that failure to fil..
More
PAUL D. BORMAN, District Judge.
On August 14, 2018, Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen issued a Report & Recommendation (ECF No. 114) in which he recommended that the Defendant's Motion Seeking Reconsideration of Restitution-Clarifying Payment (ECF No. 106) be DENIED.
In the Report and Recommendation, the parties were advised that any objections must be filed within fourteen days of service of a copy as provided for in 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2) and that failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal.
There having been no timely objections filed, the Court
(1) ACCEPTS the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 114);
(2) DENIES Defendants Motion Seeking Reconsideration of Restitution-Clarifying Payment (ECF No. 106)
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
