Opinion
6:20-CR-06101 EAW
12-27-2021
DECISION AND ORDER
ELIZABETH A. WOLFOD, Chief Judge
Defendant Enrique Medina a/k/a Ricky Rose (“Defendant”) stands accused by way of an Indictment returned on July 16, 2020, with a narcotics conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (count one) and possession of firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(i) and 2 (count two). (Dkt. 138). This Court referred all pretrial matters in the case to United States Magistrate Judge Mark W. Pedersen pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)-(B). (Dkt. 139).
On November 30, 2021, Magistrate Judge Pedersen issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court deny Defendant's pretrial motion to suppress physical evidence. (See Dkt. 588). Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the parties had 14 days after being served a copy of the Report and Recommendation to file objections. Neither party has filed objections.
The Court is not required to review de novo those portions of a report and recommendation to which objections were not filed. Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2) (“Failure to object in accordance with this rule waives a party's right to review.”); see Molefe v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 602 F.Supp.2d 485, 487 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (to trigger the de novo review standard, objections to a report “must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate judge's proposal”).
Notwithstanding the lack of objections, the Court has conducted a careful review of the Report and Recommendation as well as the filings previously made in the case, and finds no reason to reject or modify the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Pedersen. Therefore, the Court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. (Dkt. 588). For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, this Court denies Defendant's motion to suppress physical evidence. (Dkt. 523).
SO ORDERED.