Opinion
3:19-cr-00063-JMK-MMS-2
05-10-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. AVERY JAVIER, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JOSHUA M. KINDRED, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Before the Court are Mr. Javier's Motions to Suppress at Dockets 129 and 137. The First Motion to Suppress was referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Matthew M. Scoble. The Government responded in opposition at Dockets 131. Judge Scoble held oral argument on the matter on January 13, 2023. At the hearing, Mr. Javier raised a new argument under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Judge Scoble permitted additional motions practice to address the topic.Mr. Javier filed a Second Motion to Suppress at Docket 137. The Government responded in opposition at Docket 139. Judge Scoble issued his Final Reports and Recommendations at Docket 140 and 141, in which he recommended that the motions be denied. Mr. Javier filed objections the Final Reports and Recommendations at Dockets 143 and 143.
Docket 142 at 18-25.
The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). That statute provides that a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” A court is to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge's report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”But as to those topics on which no objections are filed, “[n]either the Constitution nor [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”
Id.
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”).
Mr. Javier objects to the Final Report and Recommendation on five grounds: (1) Magistrate Scoble did not make an inquiry into Officer Gebert's knowledge at the time of Mr. Javier's seizure; (2) Officer Gebert lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause; (3) the Final Reports and Recommendations are based on incorrect or unestablished facts; (4) the Final Report and Recommendations do not comport with Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979); and (5) the Final Reports and Recommendations failed to cite “authority for the proposition that when two people in a group are allegedly involved in a fight or crime, the entire group is deemed to have acted as a unit.”The Court has reviewed the First and Second Motions to Suppress; the Government's responses; the transcript of the oral argument; the exhibits provided by both parties; and Mr. Javier's objections. Further, the Court independently evaluated the factual and legal arguments raised in Mr. Javier's objections. Upon its review, the Court finds Mr. Javier's objections lack merit.
Dockets 143 & 144 (the Court notes that both dockets contain the same arguments).
United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 434 (9th Cir. 2023) (articulating that “the district court ha[s] no obligation to provide individualized analysis of each objection.”).
The magistrate judge recommended that the Court deny the First and Second Motions to Suppress. The Court has reviewed the Final Reports and Recommendations and agrees with their analyses. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Final Report and Recommendations at Dockets 140 and 141, and IT IS ORDERED that the Motions to Suppress at Dockets 129 and 137 are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.