Opinion
8:20-cr-292-VMC-CPT
08-06-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JORDAN PULIDO
ORDER
VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite's Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 109), filed on July 2, 2021, recommending that Defendant Jordan Pulido's Motion to Suppress (Doc. # 58) be denied.
Pulido filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation on July 13, 2021. (Doc. # 112). As of the date of this Order, the government has not filed a response to the objection and the time to do so has lapsed.
The Court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation and denies the Motion to Suppress.
Discussion
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). If a party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by the magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review with respect to that factual issue. Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F.Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff'd, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994).
Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Tuite's Report and Recommendation, as well as Pulido's objection thereto, the Court overrules the objection and adopts the Report and Recommendation. The Court agrees with Judge Tuite's detailed and well-reasoned findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Report and Recommendation thoughtfully addresses the issues presented, and the objection does not provide a basis for rejecting the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 109) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED.
(2) Defendant Jordan Pulido's Motion to Suppress (Doc. # 58) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED.