Opinion
01:20-CR-00272-ELR-RGV
12-15-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GELLANI EUGENE LATORRE
ORDER
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Magistrate Judge Russell G. Vineyard's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"). [Doc. 57]. Importantly, Judge Vineyard recommends that the undersigned deny Defendant Lattore's motion to suppress [Doc 49] and deny Defendant's motion for return of seized property. [Doc. 48]. In the time permitted for the Parties to object to the R&R, Defendant filed an objection [Doc. 59] to the R&R. For the following reasons, the Court OVERRULES Defendant's objection and ADOPTS the R&R as the opinion of the Court.
I. Legal Standard
The district court reviewing an R&R "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If neither party objects, the district judge need only review the R&R for clear error and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. A party objecting to an R&R "must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court." United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1361 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988)) (internal quotation marks omitted). If there are no specific objections made to factual findings made by the magistrate judge, there is no requirement that those findings be reviewed de novo. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1993). Absent objection, the district court judge "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge]," 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and may accept the recommendation if it is not clearly erroneous or contrary to the law. Fed. R. Crim. P. 59. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the R&R to which Defendants object and has reviewed the remainder of the R&R for plain error. See United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983).
II. Discussion
Defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that Defendant failed to establish he has standing to challenge the search of a particular residence. [Doc. 59]. Defendant does not present additional argument from that in his motion to suppress in support of his objection, but merely states that, "[i]n order to preserve [his] objection to the introduction of any evidence gathered from the residence, he hereby files his objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation." [Id.]
Although the Court deems this to be a general objection that does not specify which part of the Magistrate Judge's analysis Defendant objects to, the Court has nevertheless conducted a de novo review of the R&R as it relates to the issue of standing.
III. Conclusion
After conducting a de novo review of the portion of the R&R to which Defendant objects and reviewing the remainder of the R&R for plain error, this Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's factual and legal conclusions are correct. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Defendant's Objection [Doc. 59] and ADOPTS the R&R [Doc. 57] as the Opinion and Order of this Court. The Court DENIES Defendant's motion to suppress evidence [Doc. 49] and DENIES Defendant's motion for return of seized property. [Doc. 48].
As previously directed by the undersigned [See Minute Order dated 11/23/2020], Defendant is to inform the Court by January 23, 2021, whether he intends to go to trial or resolve the case in some other manner.
The Court directs that with any announcement to proceed to trial, the Parties provide an estimate of how long trial is expected to last. --------
SO ORDERED, this 15th day of December, 2020.
/s/_________
Eleanor L. Ross
United States District Judge
Northern District of Georgia