Opinion
8:09-cr-466-T-33TGW.
October 18, 2010
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court for consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 45), issued on September 27, 2010, which recommends that Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence and Statements (Doc. # 32) be denied.
As of this date, there are no objections to the report and recommendation, and the time for the parties to file such objections has elapsed.
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). 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).
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings, conclusions and recommendations, and giving de novo review to matters of law, the Court accepts the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge and the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge regarding the motion.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: ACCEPTED ADOPTED. DENIED.
1. United States Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 45) is and 2. Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence and Statements (Doc. # 32) is DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 18th day of October, 2010.