Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 1:13-CR-0241-1-CAP
06-04-2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. DONALD THOMAS, Defendant.
ORDER
This action is before the court on the report and recommendation ("R&R") of the magistrate judge [Doc. No. 38], which recommends the denial of the defendant's (1) motion to suppress evidence and statements; (2) request for bill of particulars; (3) particularized motion for disclosure of exculpatory and impeaching information and certain Jenks material; and (4) motion for pretrial disclosure of government witnesses and exhibit list. In the order for service of the R&R, the parties were ordered, in the event objections were filed, to "specify with particularity the alleged error or errors made (including reference by page number to the transcript if applicable)" [Doc. No. 39 at 2]. The defendant has filed a document entitled "Objections to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation" [Doc. No. 44]. However, there are no particularized objections contained therein; the document simply "incorporates by reference" his original motions.
A district judge "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1)(C). The district judge must "give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party." Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ. of Ga., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990). Those portions of an R&R to which an objection is not asserted are reviewed for plain error. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir.1983).
The Eleventh Circuit has held that a party wishing to preserve his objection to an R&R must clearly advise the district court and pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with. United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009). Even though timely objections to a report and recommendation entitle the objecting party to de novo review of the findings, "the district court should be spared the chore of traversing ground already plowed by the Magistrate." Gonzalez-Ramos v. Empresas Berrios, Inc., 360 F.Supp.2d 373, 376 (D.P.R. 2005). The party's objections must be grounded "in fact . . . and warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension" rather than a reiteration of arguments already considered and rejected by the Magistrate Judge. Id.
Because the defendant merely incorporated his prior motions by reference rather than precisely specifying his objections, the court has reviewed the R&R for plain error and finds none. Accordingly, the R&R is ADOPTED as the order and opinion of this court.
__________
CHARLES A. PANNELL, JR.
United States District Judge