From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Collins

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION PIKEVILLE
Feb 7, 2020
No. 7:19-CR-16-REW-EBA (E.D. Ky. Feb. 7, 2020)

Opinion

No. 7:19-CR-16-REW-EBA

02-07-2020

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. SAMANTHA COLLINS, Defendant.


ORDER

*** *** *** ***

This matter is before the Court on the Recommended Disposition (DE 91) of United States Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins, addressing Defendant Samantha Collins's guilty plea as to Counts One and Three of the Indictment (DE 1). DE 88 (Minutes). Defendant appeared before Judge Atkins on February 3, 2020. Id. After consenting to plead before a United States Magistrate Judge (DE 89) and engaging in the full colloquy required by Rule 11, she proceeded to plead guilty. DE 91. Judge Atkins found Defendant competent to plead and that Defendant did so in a knowing and voluntary fashion; he further found that an adequate factual basis supported the plea as to each essential element of the charged offenses. Id. Accordingly, Judge Atkins recommended that the Court accept Defendant's plea and adjudge her guilty of the offenses charged in Counts One and Three of the Indictment. Id.

Defendant had three days within which to object to Judge Atkins's recommendation, and she has not done so. Nor has the United States objected. While this Court reviews de novo those portions of a Recommended Disposition to which a party objects, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), it is not required to "review . . . a magistrate[] [judge's] factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings." Thomas v. Arn, 106 S. Ct. 466, 472 (1985). Where the parties do not object to the Magistrate Judge's recommended disposition, they waive any right to review. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b); United States v. White, 874 F.3d 490, 495 (6th Cir. 2017) ("When a party . . . fails to lodge a specific objection to a particular aspect of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, we consider that issue forfeited on appeal."); see also United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 582, 587 (6th Cir. 2008) (noting that "[t]he law in this Circuit is clear" that a party who fails to object to a magistrate judge's recommendation forfeits his right to appeal its adoption).

The Court thus ADOPTS the Recommended Disposition (DE 91), accepts the plea, and ADJUDGES Samantha Collins guilty of Counts One and Three of the Indictment. The Court further CANCELS the jury trial as to this Defendant. An Order scheduling sentencing follows. Defendant remains detained per prior Orders.

This the 7th day of February, 2020.

Signed By:

Robert E . Wier

United States District Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Collins

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION PIKEVILLE
Feb 7, 2020
No. 7:19-CR-16-REW-EBA (E.D. Ky. Feb. 7, 2020)
Case details for

United States v. Collins

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. SAMANTHA COLLINS, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION PIKEVILLE

Date published: Feb 7, 2020

Citations

No. 7:19-CR-16-REW-EBA (E.D. Ky. Feb. 7, 2020)