Opinion
18-CR-00675 (JMA) (AKT)
06-29-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JAMES T. TUNSTALL, Defendant.
ORDER
JOAN M. AZRACK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On May 6, 2020, Defendant moved to suppress statements he made to law enforcement officials after his arrest on October 29, 2018. (ECF No. 45.) On February 12, 2020, Judge Feuerstein referred Plaintiff's motion to Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). On April 19, 2021, this case was reassigned to this Court. On June 10, 2021, Judge Tomlinson issued an R&R recommending that Defendant's motion to suppress be denied. (ECF No. 87.)
In reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or . . . recommendations to which objection[s][are] made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. Those portions of a report and recommendation to which there is no specific reasoned objection are reviewed for clear error. See United States v. Robinson, No. 16-CR-545, 2018 WL 1009276, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2018).
To date, no objections have been filed to the R&R and the deadline for filing any such objections has passed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c).
I have reviewed Judge Tomlinson's R&R for clear error, and finding none, I adopt the R&R in its entirety as the opinion of this Court. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to suppress is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.