From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Idleman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA ELKINS
Feb 7, 2018
Criminal Action No. 2:17-CR-15-2 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 7, 2018)

Opinion

Criminal Action No. 2:17-CR-15-2

02-07-2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROCKY DOUGLAS IDLEMAN, Defendant.


(BAILEY)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On this day, the above-styled matter came before this Court upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael John Aloi. By Local Rule, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Aloi for submission of a proposed report and a recommendation ("R&R"). Magistrate Judge Aloi filed his R&R on January 16, 2018 [Doc. 441]. In that filing, the magistrate judge recommended that this Court deny the Defendant's Motion to Suppress [Doc. 335].

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), this Court is required to make a de novo review of those portions of the magistrate judge's findings to which objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). In addition, failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the right to appeal this Court's Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Snyder v. Ridenour , 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce , 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). Here, objections to Magistrate Judge Aloi's R&R were due within fourteen (14) days of filing of the same, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). To date, neither objections to the R&R, nor a motion to extend the time within which to do so have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear error.

After careful consideration of the record and the motion, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 441] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED. As such, defendant Rocky Douglas Idleman's Motion to Suppress [Doc. 335] is DENIED.

The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to all counsel of record herein.

DATED: February 7, 2018.

/s/_________

JOHN PRESTON BAILEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Idleman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA ELKINS
Feb 7, 2018
Criminal Action No. 2:17-CR-15-2 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 7, 2018)
Case details for

United States v. Idleman

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROCKY DOUGLAS IDLEMAN, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA ELKINS

Date published: Feb 7, 2018

Citations

Criminal Action No. 2:17-CR-15-2 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 7, 2018)