From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Dorsey

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Greeneville Division
Sep 16, 2010
No. 2:09-CR-045 (E.D. Tenn. Sep. 16, 2010)

Opinion

No. 2:09-CR-045.

September 16, 2010


ORDER


This criminal case is before the court on the August 24, 2010 report and recommendation ("R R") of Chief United States Magistrate Judge Dennis H. Inman [doc. 469]. Magistrate Judge Inman recommends that the defendant's motions to suppress [docs. 419, 420] be denied as premature. There have been no objections filed within the time allowed by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and no transcript of the hearing on the motion has been filed.

De novo review by the district court of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation is both statutorily and constitutionally required. See United States v. Shami, 754 F.2d 670, 672 (6th Cir. 1985). However, it is necessary only to review "those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Even though no objections have been filed, the undersigned has nonetheless reviewed the R R, the defendant's motions, and the parties' briefing. Finding itself in agreement with the magistrate judge, the court ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions of law set out in Magistrate Judge Inman's report and recommendation [doc. 469]. It is ORDERED that the defendant's motions to suppress [docs. 419, 420] are DENIED as premature.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Dorsey

United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Greeneville Division
Sep 16, 2010
No. 2:09-CR-045 (E.D. Tenn. Sep. 16, 2010)
Case details for

U.S. v. Dorsey

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ADRIAN DORSEY

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Greeneville Division

Date published: Sep 16, 2010

Citations

No. 2:09-CR-045 (E.D. Tenn. Sep. 16, 2010)