Opinion
2:06-cr-55-FtM-99DNF.
October 16, 2006
OPINION AND ORDER
On September 25, 2006, United States Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier submitted a Report and Recommendation (Doc. #57) to the Court recommending that Defendant's Motion to Suppress Involuntary Statements (Doc. #38) be denied. Defendant filed objections (Doc. #59) on September 29, 2006.
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, the Objections, and the transcript of the evidentiary hearing (Doc. #56), 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.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #57) is accepted and adopted, and it is specifically incorporated into this Order.
2. Defendant's Motion to Suppress Involuntary Statements (Doc. #38) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.