Summary
holding that defendant only had standing to challenge stop, not search, of vehicle
Summary of this case from United States v. RamosOpinion
Case No. 3:07-cr-112-J-33TEM.
February 27, 2008
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Morris's Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 67), entered on February 12, 2008, recommending that Defendant's Motion to Suppress Property Seized (Doc. # 58) be denied.
As of this date, neither party has filed an objection to the report and recommendation, and the time for the parties to file such objections, as stipulated by the parties, has elapsed.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993),aff'd, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (Table).
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings, conclusions and recommendations, and giving de novo review to matters of law, the Court accepts the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge, and the recommendation of the magistrate judge regarding the motion.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: ACCEPTED ADOPTED. DENIED.
(1) United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Morris's Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 67), entered on February 12, 2008, recommending that Defendant's Motion to Suppress Property Seized (Doc. # 58) be denied is and (2) Defendant's Motion to Suppress Property Seized (Doc. # 58) is DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Jacksonville, Florida.