Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION 5:23-cr-00141
05-28-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JENNIFER DOUGLAS
ORDER
FRANK W. VOLK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On May 6, 2024, came the Defendant, Jennifer Douglas, in person and by counsel, Rachel Elizabeth Zimarowski, Assistant Federal Public Defender, and also came the United States by Holly J. Wilson, Assistant United States Attorney, for the purpose of the Defendant's entry of a plea of guilty to Count One of the Indictment. [Doc. 4]. Count One charges the Defendant with theft from a program receiving federal funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(A). [Id.]. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on May 6, 2024. [Doc. 48]. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended the Court conditionally accept the Defendant's plea of guilty.
The Court need not review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” (emphasis added)). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the parties' right to appeal the Court's order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. De Leon-Ramirez, 925 F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2019) (Parties may not typically “appeal a magistrate judge's findings that were not objected to below, as § 636(b) doesn't require de novo review absent objection.”); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989). Further, the Court need not conduct de novo review when a party “makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the Court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Objections in this case were due on May 23, 2024. [Doc. 48]. No objections were filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 48] and DEFERS acceptance of the Plea Agreement pending the opportunity to review the Defendant's Presentence Investigation Report. The Court ADJUDGES the Defendant guilty, and Defendant is deemed convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(A). The Court incorporates all dates and case events as provided in the PF&R.
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to the Defendant and their counsel, the United States Attorney, the United States Probation Office, and the Office of the United States Marshal.