U.S. v. Prince

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. SHANNON PRINCE, Defendants

Court: United States District Court, D. Alaska

Date published: Feb 28, 2006

3:05-cr-117JWS, [Re: Motion at docket 17] (D. Alaska Feb. 28, 2006)

Opinion

3:05-cr-117JWS, [Re: Motion at docket 17].

February 28, 2006

ORDER FROM CHAMBERS

JOHN SEDWICK, District Judge

I. MOTION PRESENTED

At docket 17, defendant Shannon Prince moved to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless stop, search and arrest which took place on October 19, 2005, in Anchorage, Alaska. The motion was fully briefed, and the magistrate judge filed an initial report and recommendation at docket 25. Prince filed objections at docket 28. The magistrate judge filed a final report and recommendation at docket 32.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The district court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate."¹ When reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation in a case such as this one, the district court conducts de novo review of all conclusions of law,² and any findings of fact to which objections have been made.³ Uncontested findings of fact are reviewed for clear error.⁴

1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

2 Barilla v. Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds by Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996).

3 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

4 Taberer v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 954 F.2d 888, 906 (3d Cir. 1992).

III. DISCUSSION

Before deciding the motion, the magistrate judge conducted an evidentiary hearing. A transcript was filed at docket 27. This court has reviewed the file including the transcript of the evidentiary hearing and applied the standard of review articulated above. Based thereon, this court can find no fault with the magistrate judge's final recommended findings and conclusions; Magistrate Judge Roberts correctly found the facts and applied the law in his initial report as modified by his final report. For the preceding reason, this court adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law recommended by the magistrate judge. Based thereon, the motion at docket 17 is DENIED.