Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States of America v. Deborah M. Townsend

February 28, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DEBORAH M. TOWNSEND



ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Deborah M. Townsend's Motion to Suppress Statement of the Defendant (Doc. No. 18; Motion to Suppress). The Government filed a response in opposition to the Motion to Suppress on October 24, 2011 (Doc. No. 27; Response to Motion to Suppress). The Motion to Suppress was referred to the Honorable Monte C. Richardson, United States Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge conducted an evidentiary hearing on November 2, 2011. See Doc. No. 23. On November 23, 2011, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 37; Report) recommending that the Motion to Suppress be denied. See Report at 11. Thereafter, Defendant filed objections to the Report, see Defendant's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 38; Objections), and the Government responded, see United States' Response to Defendant's Objections to Report and Recommendation on Motion to Suppress (Doc. No. 41; Response to Objections). This matter is ripe for review.

The Court reviews a magistrate judge's report and recommendation in accordance with the requirements of Rule 59, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule(s)) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendation made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Rule 59(b)(3). "[I]n determining whether to accept, reject, or modify the magistrate's report and recommendation, the district court has the duty to conduct a careful and complete review." Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (quoting Nettles v. Wainright, 677 F. 2d 404, 408 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982)*fn1 ). Additionally, pursuant to Rule 59 and § 636(b)(1), where a party timely objects*fn2 to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, "[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1); see also Rule 59(b)(3); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). Nevertheless, while de novo review of a magistrate judge's recommendation is required only where an objection is made*fn3 , the Court always retains the authority to review such a recommendation in the exercise of its discretion. See Rule 59 advisory committee notes (2005) (citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154; Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976)).

Upon careful consideration and independent review of the record, including the transcript of the evidentiary hearing and the evidence introduced during the evidentiary hearing, and for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Report, the Court will overrule Defendant's Objections, and accept and adopt the factual and legal conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. Defendant's Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 38) are OVERRULED.

2. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 37) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.*fn4

3. Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statement of the Defendant (Doc. No. 18) is DENIED.

i16 Copies to: Counsel ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.