From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Musgrove

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Elkins
Sep 12, 2011
Criminal Action No. 2:11-CR-16-11 (N.D.W. Va. Sep. 12, 2011)

Opinion

Criminal Action No. 2:11-CR-16-11 (BAILEY).

September 12, 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 August 15, 2011 [Doc. 150]. In that filing, the magistrate judge recommended that this Court deny the defendant's Motion to Exclude Government's Evidence [Doc. 114] and Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 115].

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 August 16, 2011. ([Doc. 150] at 18-19). On August 15, 2011, the defendant retained new counsel. Because new counsel has neither filed objections nor moved for an extension of the objections deadline within fourteen (14) days of his appearance, this Court will review the R R for clear error.

Upon careful review of the R R, it is the opinion of this Court that the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. 150] 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 Exclude Government's Evidence [Doc. 114] and Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 115].

It is so ORDERED.

The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to any counsel of record herein.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Musgrove

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Elkins
Sep 12, 2011
Criminal Action No. 2:11-CR-16-11 (N.D.W. Va. Sep. 12, 2011)
Case details for

U.S. v. Musgrove

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. LESLIE DOMINIC MUSGROVE, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Elkins

Date published: Sep 12, 2011

Citations

Criminal Action No. 2:11-CR-16-11 (N.D.W. Va. Sep. 12, 2011)