United States v. Newby

Full title: United States of America v. Lyle Edward Newby

Court: United States District Court, District of Alaska

Date published: Apr 18, 2023

3:21-cr-00120-TMB-MMS (D. Alaska Apr. 18, 2023)

Opinion

3:21-cr-00120-TMB-MMS

04-18-2023

United States of America v. Lyle Edward Newby

Honorable Timothy M. Burgess, United States District Judge.

PROCEEDINGS: ORDER FROM CHAMBERS

Honorable Timothy M. Burgess, United States District Judge.

The matter comes before the Court on the Final Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) of the Magistrate Judge,¹recommending the Court deny Defendant Lyle Edward Newby's Motion to Suppress at Docket 68 (the “Motion”).² Neither Newby nor the United States (the “Government”) object to the R&R. The Government, however, does alert the Court to a typographical error on the first page of the R&R.³

1 Dkt. 98 (R&R).

2 Dkt. 68 (Motion).

3 Dkt. 99 (Notice) (“The [G]overnment does not have any objections except to note what appears to be a typo[graphical error] on page 1 of the R&R. There, the R&R refers to FBI Agent Tom King. Senior Special Agent Tom King is with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, not the FBI.”).

On February 8, 2023, the Magistrate Judge denied Newby's Motion for Hearing Pursuant to Franks v. Delaware ⁴ and Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing.⁵On March 8, 2023, the Magistrate Judge submitted the R & R, recommending the Court deny the Motion.⁶

4 438 U.S. 154 (1978).

5 Dkt. 69 (Motion for Franks Hearing); Dkt. 70 (Motion for Evidentiary Hearing); Dkt. 96 (Text Order); Dkt. 97 (Text Order).

6 See generally Dkt. 98 at 15.

After reviewing the R&R, the parties' briefing, and the record-and recognizing that the parties have not filed any objections⁷to the R&R-the Court acknowledges the minor typographical error noted by the Government and ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the R&R at Docket 98. Consequently, the Motion at Docket 68 is DENIED.

7 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations], any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. 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. A judge of the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”).