Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION FILE NUMBER 1:12-cr-330-TCB
08-12-2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JAVIER VILLAREAL and ELDER CAMACHO, Defendants.
ORDER
This case is currently before the Court on Magistrate Judge Walker's Report and Recommendation (the "R&R") [68], which recommends that Defendants' motions to suppress evidence from wiretaps [34, 50] be denied.
Following the filing of the R&R, Defendant Javier Villareal entered a guilty plea and is awaiting sentencing. Accordingly, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Villareal's pending pretrial motions and motion to adopt the objections to the R&R filed in another case [71] and DEEMS MOOT the R&R with respect to Villareal. See United States v. Damiani, No. 1:10-cr-519-AT, 2012 WL 983726, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 20, 2012).
Defendant Elder Camacho has not filed objections to the R&R. A district judge has a duty to conduct a "careful and complete" review of a magistrate judge's R&R. Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 408 (5th Cir. 1982)). Where no objection to the R&R is made, it need only be reviewed for clear error. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). After conducting a complete and careful review of the R&R, the district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Williams, 681 F.2d at 732. The district judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
The Eleventh Circuit has adopted as binding precedent all Fifth Circuit decisions issued before October 1, 1981, as well as all decisions issued after that date by the Unit B panel of the former Fifth Circuit. Stein v. Reynolds Sec., Inc., 667 F.2d 33, 34 (11th Cir. 1982); see also United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1361 n.4 (11th Cir. 2009) (discussing continuing validity of Nettles).
Macort addressed only the standard of review applied to a magistrate judge's factual findings; however, the Supreme Court has held that there is no reason for the district court to apply a different standard of review to a magistrate judge's legal conclusions. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Thus, district courts in this circuit have routinely applied a clear-error standard to both. See Tauber v. Barnhart, 438 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1373-74 (N.D. Ga. 2006) (collecting cases). By contrast, the standard of review on appeal distinguishes between the factual findings and legal conclusions. See Monroe v. Thigpen, 932 F.2d 1437, 1440 (11th Cir. 1991) (when magistrate judge's findings of fact are adopted by district court without objection, they are reviewed on appeal under plain-error standard, but questions of law remain subject to de novo review).
--------
The Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and finds no plain error in its factual or legal conclusions. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS AS ITS ORDER the R&R [68] with respect to Camacho. Camacho's motion to suppress [50] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of August, 2013.
__________________
Timothy C. Batten, Sr.
United States District Judge