Summary
denying as abandoned preliminary motion after arguments were not perfected upon court order
Summary of this case from United States v. MitchellOpinion
CRIMINAL ACTION FILE NUMBER 1:10-cr-490-1-TCB
12-31-2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JOSE LUIS CHAVEZ-MACIEL, Defendant.
ORDER
This case is currently before the Court on Magistrate Judge Walker's Report and Recommendation (the "R&R") [321]. 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)). 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 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 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 [321]. Defendant Jose Luis Chavez-Maciel's motions to suppress evidence and his statements [97, 102] are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. They are GRANTED with respect to his statements that his nickname is "Picho" and that he had a gun in his residence, and those statements are suppressed. Otherwise, the motions are DENIED.
Chavez-Maciel's motions for production of the name and location of confidential informants [101], to suppress intercepted communications [103, 118], to suppress evidence from unlawful search warrants [105, 119], and to suppress identifications [107] are DENIED.
With respect to Chavez-Maciel's motion to sever Defendants [100], the motion is DENIED as to his antagonistic-defenses argument. However, the R&R deferred to the undersigned the Bruton argument raised in that motion. Accordingly, Chavez-Maciel is DIRECTED to supplement his motion to sever with respect to the Bruton issue [100] within twenty-one days of this Order. If Chavez-Maciel does not file a supplemental brief within this period, the Clerk is DIRECTED to submit the matter to the undersigned, and the Court will deem the motion abandoned. If Chavez-Maciel does file a supplemental brief, the Government will then have fourteen days to file a response brief, and Chavez-Maciel may then file a reply brief within fourteen days.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of December, 2012.
_________________________
Timothy C. Batten, Sr.
United States District Judge