Opinion
CASE NO. 4:06CV1973.
March 6, 2007
OPINION ORDER
With this Order, the Court decides whether to adopt the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the Court's previous order denying his motion for the return of property. [Docs., 14.] For the reasons presented below, the Court ADOPTS in its entirety and incorporates by reference the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge after conducting a full review of the Plaintiff's motion to reconsider.
I. Background
On May 18, 2006, Plaintiff filed his motion. [Doc. 7.] On September 19, 2006, the Court referred Plaintiff's motion to Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert for a Report and Recommendation. [Doc. 11.] On February 6, 2007, Magistrate Limbert recommended that the Court Deny the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. [Doc. 14.]
II. Legal Standard
The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to conduct a de novo review only of those portions of the Report to which an objection has been made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any objections must be filed with the Clerk of Court within ten days of the report's issuance. Id. Parties waive their right to appeal the Recommendation if they fail to object within the time allowed. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).III. Analysis
Having conducted its own review of the facts and findings in the case, the Court agrees with the conclusion of Magistrate Judge Limbert and adopts the Report and Recommendation as its own. Therefore, the Court incorporates Magistrate Judge Limbert's findings of fact and conclusions of law fully herein by reference. Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and DENIES the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. [Docs. 7, 14.]
IT IS SO ORDERED.