Opinion
CR-09-2613-TUC-DCB.
June 21, 2010
ORDER
This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and the local rules of practice of this Court for hearing and report and recommendation on the Defendant's Motion to Suppress.
Magistrate Judge Edmonds conducted a hearing on April 27, 2010, and issued her Report and Recommendation on May 3, 2010, concluding that the Defendant's Motion to Suppress should be denied. A copy was sent to all parties. Defendant filed an Objection to Report and Recommendation. (Doc. No. 34.)
The district court must review the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made but not otherwise. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) ("[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made"). De novo review of a magistrate judge's opinion is unnecessary when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations. Strawbridge v. Sugar Mountain Resort, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 2d 472 (W.D. N.C. 2003); Smith v. Barnhart, 338 F. Supp. 2d 761 (S.D. Tex. 2004).
Defendant's Objections do not comport with the statute's requirements. Defendant lodged a blanket objection to the Magistrate Judge's factual findings and legal conclusions, but without stating any specifics. Nevertheless, this Court has conducted a de novo review of the entire Report and Recommendation and fully adopts it.
See also, Rule 72(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., which requires that "a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." DFW Vending v. Jefferson County, 991 F.Supp. 578 (E.D.Tex. 1998).
The Court, having made an independent review of the record, orders as follows:
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Edmond's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 33) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED by this Court as the findings of fact and conclusions of law.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Doc. No. 25) is DENIED.