U.S. v. LUNDSTROM, 4:14-CR-3136. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20151008b48
Visitors: 9
Filed: Oct. 07, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 07, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOHN M. GERRARD , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the United States' motion for hearing to determine whether the law firm of Koley Jessen, LLP has an impermissible conflict of interest in representing the defendant Gilbert G. Lundstrom (filing 32), and the United States Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation (filing 71) recommending that Koley Jessen be allowed to continue representing the defendant, subject to certain limitations. The partie
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOHN M. GERRARD , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the United States' motion for hearing to determine whether the law firm of Koley Jessen, LLP has an impermissible conflict of interest in representing the defendant Gilbert G. Lundstrom (filing 32), and the United States Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation (filing 71) recommending that Koley Jessen be allowed to continue representing the defendant, subject to certain limitations. The parties..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOHN M. GERRARD, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the United States' motion for hearing to determine whether the law firm of Koley Jessen, LLP has an impermissible conflict of interest in representing the defendant Gilbert G. Lundstrom (filing 32), and the United States Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation (filing 71) recommending that Koley Jessen be allowed to continue representing the defendant, subject to certain limitations. The parties were given until October 2, 2015 to file any objections to the Magistrate Judge's decision. No objection has been filed.
Tile 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) provides for de novo review only when a party objected to the Magistrate Judge's findings or recommendations. Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923 (1991). Failure to object to a finding of fact in a Magistrate Judge's recommendation may be construed as a waiver of the right to object from the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the finding of fact. NECrimR 59.2(e). And the failure to file an objection eliminates not only the need for de novo review, but any review by the Court. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Leonard v. Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 553 F.3d 609 (8th Cir. 2009); see also United States v. Meyer, 439 F.3d 855, 858-59 (8th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the Court will adopt the Findings and Recommendation, and any objection is deemed waived.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation (filing 71) are adopted.
2. The United States' motion (filing 32) is denied.
Source: Leagle
