U.S. v. Dominguez

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DAVID DOMINGUEZ

Court: United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division

Date published: Feb 2, 2006

Criminal No. 1:05CR266 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 2, 2006)

Opinion

Criminal No. 1:05CR266.

February 2, 2006

ORDER

LACY THORNBURG, District Judge

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant's objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Howell. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the undersigned referred the Defendant's motion to suppress to the Magistrate Judge for a memorandum and recommendation. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the motion be denied.

A district court conducts a de novo review of those portions of a Memorandum and Recommendation to which specific objections are filed. 28 U.S.C. § 363(b). Where no objection is made, the Court need "`only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life Accident Ins.Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4^thCir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. Advisory Committee Note). Here, only a general objection has been made. Thus, the objecting party has, in essence, asked this Court to conduct a de novo review of the entire record.

"Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need not be considered by the district court." Battle v. U.S.Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5^thCir. 1987) (quotations omitted). "A general objection to the entirety of the magistrate's report has the same effects as would a failure to object. The district court's attention is not focused on any specific issues for review, thereby making the initial reference to the magistrate useless." Howard v. Sec'y of HHS, 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6^thCir. 1991). Boilerplate objections without any citation to case law or the record do not warrant de novo review. Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 200 (4^thCir. 1997). "In this Circuit, de novo review 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.'" Hyatt v. Town of Lake Lure, 314 F.Supp.2d 562 (W.D.N.C. 2003), aff'd,114 Fed. Appx. 72 (4^thCir. 2004); see also, Lockertv. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015, 1019 (7^thCir. 1988).

Having conducted a careful review, the Court finds the Memorandum and Recommendation should be affirmed.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant's motion to suppress is hereby DENIED.