Opinion
11-CR-6083CJS
08-09-2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD W. MAR, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
By Order of Hon. Charles J. Siragusa, United States District Judge, dated May 2, 2011, all pretrial matters in the above-captioned case have been referred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(l)(A)-(B). Pocket # 2).
On June 11, 2012, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence of a photographic identification procedure. (Docket # 201). On August 9, 2012, I held an evidentiary hearing regarding the circumstances of the identification procedure. Following the testimony, I issued an oral report and recommendation, recommending that Judge Siragusa deny Mar's motion to suppress evidence of the identification.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated more fully on the record on August 9, 2012, I recommend that the district court deny Mar's motion to suppress evidence of the identification. (Docket #201).
_________________
MARIAN W. PAYSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: Rochester, New York
August 9, 2012
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), it is hereby
ORDERED, that this Report and Recommendation be filed with the Clerk of the Court.
ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days after receipt of a copy of this Report and Recommendation in accordance with the above statute and Rule 58.2(a)(3) of the Local Rules of Criminal Procedure for the Western District of New York.
Counsel is advised that a new period of excludable time pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D) commences with the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Such period of excludable delay lasts only until objections to this Report and Recommendation are filed or until the fourteen days allowed for filing objections has elapsed. United States v. Andress, 943 F.2d 622 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Long, 900 F.2d 1270 (8th Cir. 1990).
The district court will ordinarily refuse to consider on de novo review arguments, case law and/or evidentiary material which could have been, but was not, presented to the magistrate judge in the first instance. See, e.g., Paterson-Leitch Co., Inc. v. Massachusetts Mun. Wholesale Elec. Co., 840 F.2d 985 (1st Cir. 1988).
Failure to file objections within the specified time or to request an extension of such time waives the right to appeal the District Court's Order. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Small v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989); Wesolekv. Canadair Ltd., 838 F.2d 55 (2d Cir. 1988).
The parties are reminded that, pursuant to Rule 58.2(a)(3) of the Local Rules of Criminal Procedure for the Western District of New York, "written objections shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made and the basis for such objection and shall be supported by legal authority." Failure to comply with the provisions of Rule 58.2(a)(3) may result in the District Court's refusal to consider the objection.
Let the Clerk send a copy of this Order and a copy of the Report and Recommendation to the attorneys for the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________
MARIAN W. PAYSON
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: Rochester, New York
August 9, 2012