Opinion
Civil Action 1:22CR18-1
12-12-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BACARRE H. CURTIS a/k/a “TJ,”, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 83], AND DENYING MOTION TO SUPPRESS [ECF NO. 77]
THOMAS S. KLEEH, CHIEF JUDGE
On October 20, 2022, Defendant Bacarre Curtis (“Defendant”) moved to suppress physical evidence obtained from a search of his vehicle [ECF No. 77]. The Court referred his motion to the Honorable Michael J. Aloi, United States Magistrate Judge for initial review [ECF No. 78]. On December 1, 2022, Magistrate Judge Aloi entered a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court deny the motion [ECF No. 83].
The R&R informed the parties of their right to file “specific written objections, identifying the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis of such objection” no later than December 8, 2022.It further warned them that the “[f]ailure to file written objections . . . shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit Court of Appeals.” To date, no objections have been filed.
Although the parties typically would have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the R&R to file their objections, Magistrate Judge Aloi expedited this deadline in light of the upcoming pretrial conference and trial scheduled for December 13, 2022 and January 10, 2023, respectively [ECF No. 72].
When reviewing a magistrate judge's R&R, the Court must review de novo only the portions to which an objection has been timely made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Otherwise, “the Court may adopt, without explanation, any of the magistrate judge's recommendations” to which there are no objections. Dellarcirprete v. Gutierrez, 479 F.Supp.2d 600, 603-04 (N.D. W.Va. 2007) (citing Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983)). Courts will uphold portions of a recommendation to which no objection has been made unless they are clearly erroneous. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
Because no party has objected, the Court is under no obligation to conduct a de novo review. Accordingly, the Court reviewed the R&R for clear error. Finding none upon careful review, the Court ADOPTS the R&R [ECF No. 83] and DENIES the Defendant's motion to suppress [ECF No. 77].
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk SHALL transmit copies of this Order to counsel of record and all appropriate agencies.