Summary
denying motion to excuse untimeliness of motion to suppress based on inadvertence of the defendant's attorney
Summary of this case from United States v. RobinsonOpinion
12-CR-200-A
03-28-2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JACK REID, Defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER
This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) for pretrial proceedings. On July 26, 2013 and July 29, 2013, defendant Reid moved to suppress statements made to law enforcement officers. Dkt. Nos. 103-04. On September 16, 2013, defendant filed an additional motion seeking discovery and dismissal of the Superseding Indictment. Dkt. Nos. 115-16. The Magistrate Judge held a suppression hearing November 4, 2013, and thereafter, the parties filed post-hearing briefs before oral argument.
On February 24, 2014, Magistrate Judge McCarthy issued a Report, Recommendation and Order, Dkt. No. 139, recommending that defendant's motion for discovery be denied, and that defendant's motions to suppress statements and to dismiss the Superseding Indictment be denied. Any objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendations regarding dispositive issues were due March 13, 2014. No objections were filed, and the Court took the recommendations under advisement.
The Court has carefully reviewed the Report, Recommendation and Order, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court adopts its recommendations. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, that for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge McCarthy's Report, Recommendation and Order, Dkt. No. 139, defendant's motions to suppress is denied and defendant's motion to dismiss the Superseding Indictment is denied.
SO ORDERED.
___________________
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT