U.S. v. Evans, 5:17-CR-39-FL-1. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20190117i36
Visitors: 15
Filed: Jan. 16, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 16, 2019
Summary: ORDER LOUISE W. FLANAGAN , District Judge . This matter is before the court on the Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") of United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr., regarding defendant's motion to suppress (DE 56). No objections to the M&R have been filed, and the time within which to make any objection has expired. This matter is ripe for ruling. The district court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge's M&R to which specific objections are filed. 28 U.S.C. 63
Summary: ORDER LOUISE W. FLANAGAN , District Judge . This matter is before the court on the Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") of United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr., regarding defendant's motion to suppress (DE 56). No objections to the M&R have been filed, and the time within which to make any objection has expired. This matter is ripe for ruling. The district court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge's M&R to which specific objections are filed. 28 U.S.C. 636..
More
ORDER
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN, District Judge.
This matter is before the court on the Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") of United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr., regarding defendant's motion to suppress (DE 56). No objections to the M&R have been filed, and the time within which to make any objection has expired. This matter is ripe for ruling.
The district court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge's M&R to which specific objections are filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Absent a specific and timely filed objection, the court reviews only for "clear error," and need not give any explanation for adopting the M&R. Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir.1983). In this case, the magistrate judge thoroughly and cogently addresses the issues raised by defendant's motion to suppress cell phone data. Upon careful review of the M&R and of the record generally, having found no clear error, the court hereby ADOPTS the recommendation of the magistrate judge as its own, and, for the reasons stated therein, defendant's motion to suppress is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
