Opinion
21-CR-60099-RAR
10-18-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. WISHGUE FRAGE, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
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 Evidence filed on October 4, 2021 [ECF No. 23] (“Report”). The Court has reviewed the Report and is fully advised in the premises.
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 reviewed the record, as well as specifically conducted a de novo review of the Report's legal conclusions, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss's Report and Recommendation on Defendant's Motion to Suppress [ECF No. 23] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion to Suppress [ECF No. 12] is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED