From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Wilson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Mar 19, 2013
CRIMINAL ACTION FILE NUMBER 1:11-cr-53-TCB (N.D. Ga. Mar. 19, 2013)

Opinion

CRIMINAL ACTION FILE NUMBER 1:11-cr-53-TCB

03-19-2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. RASHAAD WILSON, Defendant.


ORDER

This case is currently before the Court on Magistrate Judge Clayton Scofield's Report and Recommendation (the "R&R") [146]. No objections to the R&R have been filed.

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)). This review may take different forms, however, depending on whether there are objections to the R&R. The district judge must "make a de novo determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In contrast, those portions of the R&R to which no objection is made need only be reviewed for clear error. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).

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 a 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 the continuing validity of Nettles).

Macort dealt only with the standard of review to be applied to a magistrate's factual findings, but the Supreme Court has held that there is no reason for the district court to apply a different standard to a magistrate'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). This is to be contrasted with the standard of review on appeal, which distinguishes between the two. See Monroe v. Thigpen, 932 F.2d 1437, 1440 (11th Cir. 1991) (when a magistrate's findings of fact are adopted by the district court without objection, they are reviewed on appeal under a plain-error standard, but questions of law remain subject to de novo review).
--------

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 Court has conducted a careful and complete review of the R&R and finds no clear error in its factual or legal conclusions. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS AS ITS ORDER the R&R [146]. Defendant Wilson's particularized motion to suppress evidence [110] is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of March, 2013.

___________________

Timothy C. Batten, Sr.

United States District Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Wilson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Mar 19, 2013
CRIMINAL ACTION FILE NUMBER 1:11-cr-53-TCB (N.D. Ga. Mar. 19, 2013)
Case details for

United States v. Wilson

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. RASHAAD WILSON, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

Date published: Mar 19, 2013

Citations

CRIMINAL ACTION FILE NUMBER 1:11-cr-53-TCB (N.D. Ga. Mar. 19, 2013)

Citing Cases

Thomas v. State

Counsel informed the trial court that, after reviewing the motion to suppress, discussing it with Thomas, and…