You're viewing Docket Item 35 from the case USA v. Castle. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




________________________________________________________________


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


Plaintiff,



v.


JASON CASTLE,



Defendant.




)
)
)
)
) No. 13-020029-JPM
)
)
)
)
)


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION:
DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

WESTERN DIVISION

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of




Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham (the “Report and Recommendation”),
filed May 17, 2013 (ECF No. 34), recommending that the Court
deny Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, filed March 25, 2013 (ECF
No. 21).1 No objections to the Report and Recommendation have
been filed, and the time for filing objections has expired.
(See ECF No. 34 at 16 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)).)

district judge may refer to a magistrate judge for
recommendation a defendant’s . . . motion to suppress evidence.”
Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(1). “[U]pon proper objection by a party,
a district court must review de novo a magistrate judge’s ruling
on a motion to dismiss.” United States v. Quinney, 238 F. App’x
150, 152 (6th Cir. 2007); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3).

1 A hearing was held on the Motion to Suppress on May 13, 2013. (ECF No. 30.)

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 59, “[a]

When no timely objection is made to the magistrate judge’s
ruling, “[t]he district court need not review, under a de novo
or any other standard,” the report and recommendation. United
States v. Woodruff, 830 F. Supp. 2d 390, 395 (W.D. Tenn. 2011);
see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2) (stating that failure to
timely object “waives a party’s right to review”). The Court
hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Suppress is DENIED.



SO ORDERED this 3rd day of June, 2013.















s/ Jon P. McCalla

JON P. McCALLA
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE