Opinion
Case No. 3:13-cr-230-J-34MCR
11-04-2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SAMUEL FRANKLIN CREWS
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Samuel Franklin Crews' Motion to Suppress Statements (Doc. 26; Motion), filed May 21, 2014. The Motion was referred to the Honorable Monte C. Richardson, United States Magistrate Judge, to conduct an evidentiary hearing and recommend an appropriate resolution. The Government filed the United States' Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements (Doc. 44) on June 20, 2014. Judge Richardson held an evidentiary hearing on July 17, 2014. In his Report and Recommendation (Doc. 58; Report), issued August 13, 2014, Judge Richardson recommends that Defendant's Motion be denied. See Report at 1. The Report also advises Defendant of his right to file objections to the Report within fourteen days of service, and that failure to do so would bar him from a de novo review by the district court. See id. Defendant filed an Unopposed Motion to Enlarge Time to Respond (Doc. 61), which the Court granted, extending the deadline to file objections to September 12, 2014. See Doc. 62. However, Defendant has not filed any objections, and the time to do so has now passed. See id.
The Court reviews a magistrate judge's report and recommendation in accordance with the requirements of Rule 59, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule(s)) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Rule 59(b)(3). "[I]n determining whether to accept, reject, or modify the magistrate's report and recommendations, the district court has the duty to conduct a careful and complete review." Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (quoting Nettles v. Wainright, 677 F.2d 404, 408 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982)). Additionally, pursuant to Rule 59 and § 636(b)(1), where a party timely objects to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, "[a] judge of the [district] court 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); see also Rule 59(b)(3); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). Nevertheless, while de novo review of a magistrate judge's recommendation is required only where an objection is made, the Court always retains the authority to review such a recommendation in the exercise of its discretion. See Rule 59 advisory committee notes (2005) (citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154; Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976)).
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981), the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent decisions of the former Fifth Circuit (including Unit A panel decisions of that circuit) handed down prior to October 1, 1981. W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co. v. Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts & Co., 566 F.3d 979, 985 n.6 (11th Cir. 2009). After October 1, 1981, "only the decisions of the continuing Fifth Circuit's Administrative Unit B are binding on this circuit. . . ." Dresdner Bank AG v. M/V Olympia Voyager, 446 F.3d 1377, 1381 n.1 (11th Cir. 2006). The Court notes that the Fifth Circuit overruled Nettles, in part, on other grounds, in Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). However, "that does not change the binding effect of Nettles in this Circuit because Douglass was decided after October 1, 1981, and was not a Unit B decision." United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 n.4 (11th Cir. 2009).
Both 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 59(b)(2) require a party wishing to object to a magistrate judge's recommendation to serve and file any objections within fourteen (14) days of being served with the magistrate's recommendation. Rule 59 further provides that a "[f]ailure to object in accordance with this rule waives a party's right to review." Rule 59(b)(2).
See Rule 59 advisory committee notes (2005) (citing Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923 (1991)).
--------
Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's Report, the Court will accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the magistrate judge.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 58) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
2. Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements (Doc. 26) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 4th day of November, 2014.
/s/_________
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD
United States District Judge
i28 Copies to: The Honorable Monte C. Richardson
United States Magistrate Judge
Counsel of Record