Opinion
3:24-cr-00036-SLG
11-18-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CORY LEE WATTS, Defendant.
ORDER RE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SHARON L. GLEASON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court at Docket 23 is Defendant Cory Lee Watts's Motion to Dismiss Count I of the Indictment. The Government responded in opposition at Docket 24. The motion was referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Kyle F. Reardon. At Docket 25, Judge Reardon issued his Report and Recommendation, in which he recommended that the motion be denied. Defendant filed objections at Docket 31. The Government did not file a reply.
The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). That statute provides that a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”A court is to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge's report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” However, § 636(b)(1) does not “require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”
Id.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).
The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny the motion to dismiss. The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and Defendant's objections. On de novo review, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to Deny Motion to Dismiss. This Court is bound by the Ninth Circuit's holding in United States v. Vongxay, 594 F.3d 1111, 1118 (9th Cir. 2010). And, as Defendant correctly acknowledges, the panel decision in United States v. Duarte, 101 F.4th 657 (9th Cir. 2024), has been vacated. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, and IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Count I of the Indictment at Docket 23 is DENIED. This denial is without prejudice to Defendant refiling the motion if it becomes appropriate after the Ninth Circuit issues its en banc decision in United States v. Duarte.