Opinion
19-20178-CR-ALTONAGA
06-16-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DANE ROSEMAN and IVAN ACEVEDO, Defendants.
ORDER
CECILIA M. ALTONAGA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendants' Joint Objections [ECF No. 277] to Magistrate Judge's Amended Report and Recommendation Denying Venue Transfer Motion [ECF No. 277]. Having reviewed the Order on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Amended Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 272] and the entire record, and having made a de novo determination with respect to those portions of the Amended Report to which Defendants formally objected, it is hereby
“The Court need not do over every step done by a magistrate judge on which there was some objection. De novo review means review without any deference; it does not mean that a district judge must redo the case without consideration of what the magistrate judge has written.” DeJonge v. Burton, No. 1:16-cv-980, 2018 WL 4929756, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 11, 2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Order on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Amended Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 272] are ADOPTED in their entirety. Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer Case [ECF No. 245] is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.