Opinion
2:06-cr-98-FtM-29SPC.
November 27, 2006
OPINION AND ORDER
On November 9, 2006, United States Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell submitted a Report and Recommendation (Doc. #58) to the Court recommending that Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. #44) be denied. No objections have been filed, the time to file such objections has expired, and defendant has filed a consent regarding the entry of a guilty plea (Doc. #61).
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). A district judge "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This requires that the district judge "give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party." Jeffrey S. by Ernest S. v. State Bd. of Educ. of Ga., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong., § 2 (1976)). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
After reviewing the Report and Recommendation and the transcript of the evidentiary hearing (Doc. #57), the Court fully agrees with the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by the magistrate judge. Accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation and will deny the motion to suppress evidence.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #58) is accepted and adopted, and it is specifically incorporated into this Opinion and Order.
2. Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. #44) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.