United States v. Hampton

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. TYRONE HAMPTON, Defendant.

Court: United States District Court, District of Alaska

Date published: Sep 22, 2023

3:22-cr-00084-JMK (D. Alaska Sep. 22, 2023)

Opinion

3:22-cr-00084-JMK

09-22-2023

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. TYRONE HAMPTON, Defendant.

JOSHUA M. KINDRED, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER ADOPTING REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

JOSHUA M. KINDRED, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court are Mr. Hampton's Motions to (1) Suppress at Docket 208, (2) Dismiss at Docket 214, and Dismiss at Docket 266. Mr. Hampton is a self-represented defendant. The motions were collectively referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Matthew M. Scoble.

The Government responded in opposition to Mr. Hampton's Motion to Suppress at Docket 213. Judge Scoble issued his Final Report and Recommendation at Docket 254, in which he recommended that the motion be denied. Mr. Hampton filed an objection the Final Report and Recommendation at Docket 265.

The Government responded in opposition to Mr. Hampton's Docket 214 Motion to Dismiss at Docket 220. Judge Scoble issued his Final Report and Recommendation at Docket 256, in which he recommended that the motion be denied. No objections were filed.

The Government responded in opposition to Mr. Hampton's Docket 266 Motion to Dismiss at Docket 273. Judge Scoble issued his Final Report and Recommendation at Docket 278, in which he recommended that the motion be denied. No objections were filed.

These matters are now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). That statute provides that a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”¹A court is to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge's report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”²But as to those topics on which no objections are filed, “[n]either the Constitution nor [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”³

1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

2 Id.

3 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”).

Mr. Hampton objects to the Final Report and Recommendation at Docket 254 addressing the Motion to Suppress on factual grounds. Mr. Hampton asserts that the Final Report and Recommendation misstates the factual background as to the two intercepted packages and the related search warrants.⁴ The Court has reviewed all the exhibits provided with the Motion to Suppress, the Government's Opposition, the Final Report and Recommendation, and the Objection. The Court does not find either legal or factual error.⁵Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Final Report and Recommendation at Docket 254, and the Motion to Suppress at Docket 208 is DENIED.

4 Docket 266 at 1-5.

5 United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 434 (9th Cir. 2023) (articulating that “the district court ha[s] no obligation to provide individualized analysis of each objection.”).

Final Reports and Recommendations at Dockets 256 and 278 recommended that the Motions to Dismiss at Dockets 214 and 266 be DENIED. No objections were filed. Regardless, the Court conducted de novo review and did not find error. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Final Reports and Recommendations at Docket 256 and 278, and the Motions to Dismiss at Dockets 214 and 266 are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.