Opinion
3:21-cr-00012-SLG-DMS-2
06-08-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. L.C. SHELTON JOHNSON-WHITLOW, Defendant.
ORDER RE FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SHARON L. GLEASON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendant L.C. Shelton Johnson-Whitlow pled guilty to count 1 of the First Superseding Indictment charging Conspiracy to Distribute a Controlled Substance before Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Smith on April 22, 2021. He also admitted the criminal forfeiture allegation. The plea and admission were accepted by this Court on May 10, 2021.
See Docket 69.
See Docket 155.
On May 19, 2021, Defendant Johnson-Whitlow was indicted in the Second Superseding Indictment for the identical charge, Conspiracy to Distribute a Controlled Substance. At the arraignment May 25, 2021, the government moved to dismiss count 1 and criminal forfeiture allegation 1 in the Second Superseding Indictment against Mr. Johnson-Whitlow only.
See Docket 164.
At Docket 183, Judge Smith issued a Report and Recommendation, in which she recommended that count 1 and criminal forfeiture allegation 1 in the Second Superseding Indictment be dismissed against defendant, L.C. Shelton Johnson-Whitlow. No. objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed.
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 [28U.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.”).
Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation, and IT IS ORDERED that the motion to dismiss count 1 and criminal forfeiture allegation 1 of the Second Superseding Indictment as to Johnson-Whitlow is GRANTED. Count 1 and Criminal Allegation 1 are DISMISSED as to L.C. Shelton Johnson-Whitlow.