Opinion
21-20085
07-25-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RUSSELL WAYNE SALISBURY, Defendant.
DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY
Patricia T. Morris United States Magistrate Judge
I. REPORT AND FINDINGS
This case was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B) and 636(b)(3) for purposes of receiving, on consent of the parties, Defendant's offer of a plea of guilty. Defendant and his counsel appeared before me on July 20, 2023, and plead guilty to count 2 of the indictment. In open court, I examined Defendant under oath, confirmed Defendant's consent, and then advised and questioned Defendant regarding each of the inquiries prescribed by Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Based upon Defendant's answers and demeanor, I HEREBY FIND: (1) that Defendant is competent to enter a plea; (2) that Defendant's plea is entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, without coercion; and (3) that the offense(s) to which Defendant pleaded guilty is(are) supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of the offense. Therefore, I have ordered the preparation of a presentence investigation report.
II. RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Defendant's plea be accepted, Defendant be adjudged guilty and the Court impose sentence.
III. REVIEW
Pursuant to Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days after being served with a copy.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2). See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). The parties are advised that making some objections, but failing to raise others, will not preserve all the objections a party may have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge.