Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 3:09-CR-87-6.
January 14, 2011
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David J. Joel. By Local Rule, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Joel for submission of a proposed report and a recommendation ("R R"). Magistrate Judge Joel filed his R R on January 7, 2011 [Doc. 264]. In that filing, the magistrate judge recommended that this Court dismiss the defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence Seized During Search of the Defendant [Doc. 232].
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), this Court is required to make a de novo review of those portions of the magistrate judge's findings to which objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). In addition, failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the right to appeal this Court's Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Snyder v. Ridenour , 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce , 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). Here, objections to Magistrate Judge Joel's R R were due on or before 12:00 p.m., on January 12, 2011. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the report and recommendation for clear error.
Upon careful review of the report and recommendation, it is the opinion of this Court that the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. 264] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. As such, this Court hereby DENIES the defendant's Motion to Suppress [Doc. 232].
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to any counsel of record.
DATED: January 14, 2011.