United States v. Ziegler

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ZACHERY LEE ZIEGLER, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA CENTRAL DIVISION

Date published: Dec 22, 2017

3:17-CR-30074-RAL (D.S.D. Dec. 22, 2017)

Opinion

3:17-CR-30074-RAL

12-22-2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ZACHERY LEE ZIEGLER, Defendant.

ROBERTO A. LANGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Defendant Zachery Lee Ziegler is charged with voluntary manslaughter. Ziegler moved to suppress statements he made during an interview with an FBI agent. Doc. 37. Magistrate Judge Mark A. Moreno held an evidentiary hearing during which he received a recording of the interview and heard testimony from two law enforcement officers. On November 29, 2017, Judge Moreno issued a report and recommendation finding that Ziegler's statements were inadmissible in the government's case in chief but could be used as impeachment evidence should Ziegler testify. Doc. 66.

This Court reviews a report and recommendation under the statutory standards found in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), which provides in relevant part that "[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." "In the absence of an objection, the district court is not required 'to give any more consideration to the magistrate's report than the court considers appropriate.'" United States v. Murillo-Figueroa, 862 F. Supp. 2d 863, 866 (N.D. Iowa 2012) (quoting Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985)).

Here, neither Ziegler nor the government has filed objections to the report and recommendation and the fourteen days for doing so has passed. Accordingly, this Court has reviewed the report and recommendation under a clearly erroneous standard of review. See Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (explaining that when no objections are filed and the time for filing objections has expired, the district court "would only have to review the findings of the magistrate for clear error"). Finding no clear error, this Court adopts the report and recommendation.

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation for Disposition of Motion to Suppress Statement, Doc. 66, is adopted. It is further

ORDERED that Ziegler's Motion to Suppress Statement, Doc. 37, is granted in part and denied in part as set forth in the Report and Recommendation.

DATED this 22^nd day of December, 2017.

BY THE COURT:

/s/_________

ROBERTO A. LANGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE