Filed: Dec. 29, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 29, 2017
Summary: ORDER MARTIN REIDINGER , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to Suppress [Doc. 9]; the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 43] regarding the disposition of that motion; and the Defendant's Objections to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge [Doc. 44]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and the standing Orders of Designation of this Court, the Honorable Dennis L. Howell, United States Magistrate Judge, was designated to consider t
Summary: ORDER MARTIN REIDINGER , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to Suppress [Doc. 9]; the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 43] regarding the disposition of that motion; and the Defendant's Objections to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge [Doc. 44]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and the standing Orders of Designation of this Court, the Honorable Dennis L. Howell, United States Magistrate Judge, was designated to consider th..
More
ORDER
MARTIN REIDINGER, District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to Suppress [Doc. 9]; the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 43] regarding the disposition of that motion; and the Defendant's Objections to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge [Doc. 44].
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and the standing Orders of Designation of this Court, the Honorable Dennis L. Howell, United States Magistrate Judge, was designated to consider the Defendant's motion to suppress and to submit a recommendation for its disposition.
On December 1, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed a Memorandum and Recommendation containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of a recommendation regarding the Defendant's motion. [Doc. 43]. The parties were advised that any objections to the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation were to be filed in writing within fourteen (14) days of service. The Defendant timely filed Objections on December 15, 2017. [Doc. 44]. The Government filed its Response to Defendant's Objections. [Doc. 46]. The Government does not object to the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation, however, it does object to the assertions and innuendos contained in the Defendant's Objections. [Id.]1
After careful consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation and the Defendant's Objections thereto, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's proposed findings of fact are correct and that the proposed conclusions of law are consistent with current case law. Accordingly, the Court hereby overrules the Defendant's objections and accepts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the Defendant's motion to suppress be denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant's Objections to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge [Doc. 44] are OVERRULED; the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 43] is ACCEPTED; and the Defendant's Motion to Suppress [Doc. 9] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
