Opinion
Case No. 8:11-cr-195-T-33EAJ.
August 19, 2011
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon consideration of the report and recommendation of the Honorable Elizabeth A. Jenkins, United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 23), which was filed on August 3, 2011, recommending that Buggs's Motion to Suppress (Doc. # 10) be denied. No objections have been filed, and the time to file objections has expired.
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, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 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).
The Court has conducted an independent examination of the file and upon due consideration, the Court accepts and adopts the report and recommendation.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: ACCEPTED ADOPTED. DENIED.
(1) The report and recommendation (Doc. # 23) is and (2) Buggs's Motion to Suppress (Doc. # 10) is DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida.