Opinion
21-CR-60223-RAR/Strauss
02-03-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. VERAN ANDREW, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS
RODOLFO A. RUIZ II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss's Report and Recommendation on Defendant's Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence [ECF No. 24], filed on January 19, 2022 [ECF No. 46] (“Report”). The Court has reviewed the Report, Defendant's Objections [ECF No. 50], and is otherwise fully advised.
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation “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); see also Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed.Appx. 781, 783-84 (11th Cir. 2006). The district court “may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings of the recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id.; see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). “[I]n determining whether to accept, reject, or modify the magistrate's report and recommendations, the district court has the duty to conduct a careful and complete review.” Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 408 (5th Cir. 1982)). Legal conclusions are subject to de novo review, even if no party specifically objects. See U.S. v. Keel, 164 Fed.Appx. 958, 961 (11th Cir. 2006); U.S. v. Warren, 687 F.2d 347, 348 (11th Cir. 1982).
Mindful of the standard of review, and having carefully examined the record-as well as specifically conducted a de novo review of the Report's legal conclusions and portions of the Report addressed by Defendant's Objections [ECF No. 50]-it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 46] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. Defendant's Objections [ECF No. 50] are OVERRULED. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence [ECF No. 24] is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED