Opinion
3:14-cr-00069-SLG
09-21-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BOONCHAN YANG, Defendant.
ORDER RE FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SHARON L. GLEASON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On October 9, 2020, a second superseding petition to revoke supervised release was filed against Boonchan Yang, alleging seven violations of his conditions of release. Mr. Yang denied any drug use when speaking with his probation officer. A two-day evidentiary hearing was held on the matter before Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Smith. At Docket 157 Judge Smith issued her Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the District Court find Boonchan Yang guilty of Violations 1 and 4 of the Second Superseding Petition and further, that Violations 2, 3, 5 (DUI allegation), 6, and 7 of the Petition be dismissed. Defendant filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation at Docket 161. The Government filed a response of no objections to the Report and Recommendation at Docket 164.
Docket 114.
Docket 148 at 20, 31.
Dockets 147, 148.
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.”).
The magistrate judge recommended that the Court find Defendant Yang guilty of Violations 1 and 4 of the Second Superseding Petition and that Violations 2, 3, 5 (DUI allegation), 6, and 7 of the Petition be dismissed. Defendant's objection asserts that the magistrate judge failed to consider the possibility of outside contamination because the protective layer of the patches underlying both allegations 1 and 4 had been compromised. However, on de novo review, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge's finding that a preponderance of the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing supports a finding that both Defendant committed both Violation 1 and Violation 4. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation, and IT IS ORDERED that Defendant is adjudged GUILTY of Violation 1 and Violation 4. Violations 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 are each DISMISSED.
Docket 161 at 2.
A disposition hearing will be scheduled by separate order in due course.