From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. McPherson

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, at Greeneville
Jul 14, 2009
No. 2:08-cr-38 (E.D. Tenn. Jul. 14, 2009)

Opinion

No. 2:08-cr-38.

July 14, 2009


ORDER


This criminal case is before the court on the report and recommendation of magistrate judge Dennis H. Inman [doc. 216] that the defendant's motion to dismiss the Fourth Superseding Indictment for violations of the Speedy Trial Act [doc. 206] be denied. Neither the defendant nor the government have filed any objections to the report and recommendation, and no transcript of the hearing on the motion has been prepared.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), a de novo review by the district court of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation is both statutorily and constitutionally required. See United States v. Shami, 754 F.2d 670, 672 (6th Cir. 1985). However, it is necessary only to review "those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); see also United States v. Campbell, 261 F.3d 628, 631-32 (6th Cir. 2001).

The court has reviewed de novo the report and recommendation and the pleadings, and ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions of law set out in the report and recommendation. The court agrees with Judge Inman that the defendant's pretrial detention is of some concern, but it does not yet reach a presumptively prejudicial threshold. Further there is no violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3161, the Speedy Trial Act, because not all the defendants are in custody. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(6). Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendant's motion to dismiss the Fourth Superseding Indictment for violations of his speedy trial rights is DENIED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. McPherson

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, at Greeneville
Jul 14, 2009
No. 2:08-cr-38 (E.D. Tenn. Jul. 14, 2009)
Case details for

U.S. v. McPherson

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ROBERT MARK McPHERSON

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, at Greeneville

Date published: Jul 14, 2009

Citations

No. 2:08-cr-38 (E.D. Tenn. Jul. 14, 2009)

Citing Cases

Smith v. Warden

Such a delay is not presumptively prejudicial. See United States v. Brown, 498 F.3d. 523, 530 (6th Cir. 2007)…

Doyle v. McConahay

Courts within the Sixth Circuit have held that a nine-month delay is not presumptively prejudicial. See…