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.
Defendant has filed objections to the Report. See
Defendant's Objections to Report and Recommendation (Doc.
No. 45; Objections). The United States has responded to the
Objections by stating that if the Court determines to
substantively review Defendant's untimely Objections,
then the United States adopts the arguments set forth in its
response to the motion to suppress. See United
States' Response to Motion to Permit Late Filing (Doc.
No. 47; Response).
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 overrule the Objections and accept and adopt
the factual and legal conclusions recommended by the
Magistrate Judge. In doing so, the Court notes that the facts
underlying the Objections were fully addressed by the
Magistrate Judge. Additionally, the Court finds the
Magistrate Judge's conclusions that the incriminating
nature of the firearm and marijuana was immediately apparent
and that a search of the vehicle was authorized by the
automobile exception are entirely supported by the facts and
the applicable law.
it is hereby ORDERED:
1. Defendant's Objections to Report and Recommendation
(Doc. No. 45) are OVERRULED
2. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc.
No. 41) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the
3. 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. ...