Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION FILE NO. 1:10-cr-323-TCB.
April 1, 2011
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' joint objections [66] to Magistrate Judge Russell G. Vineyard's Report and Recommendation ("R R") [62], which recommends that Defendants' motions to suppress [30, 36, 37] be denied.
After conducting a careful and complete review of a Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify a Magistrate Judge's R R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). A district judge "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge must "give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party." Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ. of Ga., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990). Those portions of an R R to which an objection is not asserted are reviewed for plain error. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983).
The Court has conducted a careful review of the R R and Defendants' objections thereto. Having done so, the Court finds that Judge Vineyard's factual and legal conclusions are entirely correct, and that Defendants' objections lack merit. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS AS ITS ORDER Judge Vineyard's R R [62], DENIES Defendants' motions to suppress [30, 36, 37], GRANTS Defendants' motion for an extension of time to file objections [64], and DENIES Defendants' request [64] for oral argument.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of April, 2011.