U.S. v. DOWNWIND, 11-295 (MJD/LIB). (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
Number: infdco20120110699
Visitors: 18
Filed: Jan. 08, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 08, 2012
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL J. DAVIS, Chief District Judge. The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois dated October 24, 2011. [Docket No. 28.] Defendant Robert Joseph Downwind filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review upon the record. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based upon that review, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommenda
Summary: ORDER MICHAEL J. DAVIS, Chief District Judge. The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois dated October 24, 2011. [Docket No. 28.] Defendant Robert Joseph Downwind filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review upon the record. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based upon that review, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendat..
More
ORDER
MICHAEL J. DAVIS, Chief District Judge.
The above-entitled matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois dated October 24, 2011. [Docket No. 28.] Defendant Robert Joseph Downwind filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.
Pursuant to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review upon the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.2(b). Based upon that review, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Brisbois dated October 24, 2011.
Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois's Report and Recommendation dated October 24, 2011 [Docket No. 28].
2. Defendant Robert Joseph Downwind's Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained as a Result of Search and Seizure [Docket No. 14] and Motion to Suppress Eyewitness Identifications [Docket No. 19] are DENIED.
Source: Leagle
