ORDER

MALCOLM J. HOWARD, Senior District Judge.

This matter is before the court on defendant's motion to suppress. Following an evidentiary hearing on April 13, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank entered a memorandum and recommendation (M&R) on May 3, 2017 recommending denial of the motion. The defendant has objected, and the government has responded. This matter is ripe for adjudication. Under Rule 59 (b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a district judge must consider "de novo any objection to the magistrate judge's recommendation."

Defendant objects to the M&R, noting several factual and legal objections: (1) the Magistrate Judge should not have credited Captain Boykin's unsupported account as providing reasonable suspicion to justify the search; (2) the Magistrate Judge incorrectly found that "two independent tipsters" provided part of the reasonable suspicion to support the stop and search; (3) these alleged tips did not provide reasonable suspicion of defendant's criminal wrongdoing; (4) the Griffin factors were not properly met in this case; and that the officers are trying to justify this search only in "hindsight" or upon "post hoc rationalization." The court finds these objections to be without merit. Captain Boykin's account was properly credited because it corroborated other evidence in the case. The Magistrate Judge was clear about the identity of the two tipsters. The tips provided reasonable suspicion due to the timely, specific nature of the information of criminal wrongdoing by the defendant. While the officers may not have taken down names and numbers for the tipsters, the totality of the circumstances shows reasons to credit their information. Finally, because there was reasonable suspicion at the time the tips were given, there was no reason for post hoc rationalization in this matter.

This court, having conducted a de novo review of the M&R and other documents of record, finds the recommendation of the magistrate judge is in accordance with the law and should be approved.

Accordingly, the court hereby adopts the recommendation of the magistrate judge as its own; and, for the reasons stated therein, the defendant's motion to suppress [DE #25] is hereby DENIED.