Opinion
2:05-cr-71-FtM-99DNF.
December 12, 2006
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on a Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence and Statements of Defendant (Doc. #725) filed on October 31, 2006. A Report and Recommendation (Doc. #742) was filed on November 13, 2006, recommending that the motion be denied. No objections have been filed, and the time to file objections has passed.
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 (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 prosed 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. REP. NO. 94-1609, 94th Cong., 2d Sess.,reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6162, 6163). 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), and the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 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); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993),aff'd, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (Table).
Having read the transcript of the suppression hearing, the Court fully agrees with the findings, conclusions of law, and recommendations of the Report and Recommendation. Therefore, the motion will be denied.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #742) is accepted and adopted and the Motion to Suppress Physical Evidence and Statements of Defendant (Doc. #725) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida.