Opinion
2:21-cr-00230-APG-VCF
04-21-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff v. MARCUS MATTINGLY, Defendant
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS [ECF NOS. 30, 34, 52]
ANDREW P. GORDON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
On February 18, 2022, Magistrate Judge Ferenbach recommended that I deny defendant Marcus Mattingly's two motions to suppress. ECF No. 52. Mattingly did not object. Thus, I am not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring district courts to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)).
I THEREFORE ORDER that Magistrate Judge Ferenbach's report and recommendation (ECF No. 52) is accepted and defendant Marcus Mattingly's motions to suppress (ECF Nos. 30, 34) are DENIED.