Filed: Jul. 10, 2017
Latest Update: Jul. 10, 2017
Summary: DECISION AND ORDER ELIZABETH WOLFFORD , District Judge . Defendant Jack Wood ("Defendant") is charged in seven counts of a 46-count Second Superseding Indictment that alleges various crimes, including a RICO 1 conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d), firearm offenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c), various narcotics offenses, crimes in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951(a), and various VICAR 2 counts, pertaining to the operation of the Kingsmen Motorcycle Club. (Dkt.
Summary: DECISION AND ORDER ELIZABETH WOLFFORD , District Judge . Defendant Jack Wood ("Defendant") is charged in seven counts of a 46-count Second Superseding Indictment that alleges various crimes, including a RICO 1 conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d), firearm offenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c), various narcotics offenses, crimes in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. 1951(a), and various VICAR 2 counts, pertaining to the operation of the Kingsmen Motorcycle Club. (Dkt. 3..
More
DECISION AND ORDER
ELIZABETH WOLFFORD, District Judge.
Defendant Jack Wood ("Defendant") is charged in seven counts of a 46-count Second Superseding Indictment that alleges various crimes, including a RICO1 conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), firearm offenses in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), various narcotics offenses, crimes in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and various VICAR2 counts, pertaining to the operation of the Kingsmen Motorcycle Club. (Dkt. 33). Defendant is one of 16 defendants3 named in the Second Superseding Indictment. (Id.).
This Court initially referred all pretrial matters in the case to United States Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A)-(B) (7/29/2015 Dkt. Entry), and then upon return of the Second Superseding Indictment, the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer (Dkt. 35).
On June 13, 2017, Magistrate Judge Roemer issued a thorough Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court deny Defendant's pretrial motion (Dkt. 553) to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant executed at his home on August 26, 2015. (See Dkt. 628). Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the parties had 14 days after being served a copy of the Report and Recommendation to file objections. No objections were filed.
The Court is not required to review de novo those portions of a report and recommendation to which objections were not filed. Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2) ("Failure to object in accordance with this rule waives a party's right to review."); see Molefe v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 602 F.Supp.2d 485, 487 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (to trigger the de novo review standard, objections to a report "must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate judge's proposal").
Notwithstanding the lack of objections, the Court has conducted a careful review of the Report and Recommendation as well as the filings previously made in the case, and finds no reason to reject or modify the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Roemer. Therefore, the Court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 628). For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, this Court denies Defendant's pretrial motion (Dkt. 553) to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant executed at his home on August 26, 2015. (See Dkt. 628).
SO ORDERED.
