United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division
MORALES HOWARD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Monte
C. Richardson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 41;
Report), entered on July 3, 2019. In the Report, Magistrate
Judge Richardson recommends that Defendant's Motion to
Suppress (Doc. No. 24) be denied. See Report at 18.
No. objections to the Report have been filed, and the time
for doing so has now passed.
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 of the
recommendations 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 recommendations, 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)). Additionally,
pursuant to Rule 59 and § 636(b)(1), where a party
timely objects 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,
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; Matthews v. Weber,
423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976)).
careful consideration and independent review of the record,
the Court will accept and adopt the factual and legal
conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge.
it is hereby ORDERED:
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No.
41) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Doc. No. 24) is
 In Bonner v. City of
Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981), the
Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent decisions of
the former Fifth Circuit (including Unit A panel discussions
of that circuit) handed down prior to October 1, 1981.
W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co., L.L.C. v. Kohlberg, Kravis,
Roberts & Co., L.P., 556 F.3d 979, 985 n.6 (11th
Cir. 2009). After October 1, 1981, “only decisions of
the continuing Fifth Circuit's Administrative Unit B are
binding on this circuit. . . .” Dresdner Bank AG v.
M/V Olympia Voyager, 446 F.3d 1377, 1381 n. 1 (11th Cir.
2006). The Court notes that the Fifth Circuit overruled
Nettles, in part, on other grounds, in Douglass
v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415,
1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc). However,
“that does not change the binding effect of
Nettles in this Circuit because Douglass
was decided after October 1, 1981 and was not a Unit B
decision.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d
1353, 1360 n.4 (11th Cir. 2009).
 Both 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) and
Rule 59(b)(2) require a party wishing to object to a
magistrate judge's recommendation to serve and file any
objections within fourteen (14) days of being served with the
magistrate's recommendation. Rule 59 further provides
that a “[f]ailure to object in accordance with this
rule waives a party's right to review.” Rule
See Rule 59 advisory
committee notes (2005) (citing Peretz v. United
States, 501 U.S. ...