United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS
JOHN T. FOWLKES, Jr. District Judge.
Before the Court comes Defendant Michael Lilley's Motion to Amend and Adopt Docket Entry 37 filed October 7, 2014, (ECF No. 79); Motion to Disclose filed October 14, 2014, (ECF No. 82); Motion to Change Venue filed October 14, 2014, (ECF No. 84); and Motion to Suppress Statements filed October 6, 2014, (ECF No. 77). Government filed a Response to Defendant's Motion to Change Venue on October 15, 2014, (ECF No. 85), and Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements on October 14, 2014, (ECF No. 83). On October 17, 2014, this Court referred the above four motions to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) for a Report and Recommendation on each. (ECF No. 87). The Magistrate Judge held a hearing on the motions on November 5, 2014, (ECF No. 92), to which a transcript of the hearing can be found at ECF No. 97. On November 6, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued separate Reports and Recommendations for three of the above motions. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendant's Motion to Amend be granted, (ECF No. 93); Defendant's Motion to Disclose be granted, (ECF No. 94); and Defendant's Motion to Change Venue be denied, (ECF No. 95). Further, on November 14, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued her Report and Recommendation that Defendant's Motion to Suppress be denied. (ECF No. 96). Neither party has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Reports and Recommendations, and such time for filing has expired.
For the following reasons, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's Reports and Recommendations should be adopted, and Defendant's Motion to Amend GRANTED; Motion to Disclose GRANTED; Motion to Change Venue DENIED; and Motion to Suppress DENIED.
I. FACTUAL HISTORY
The parties filed no objections to the Magistrate Judge's proposed facts. Therefore, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's proposed findings of fact as the factual history. (ECF Nos. 95 at 2-3; 96 at 3-7).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The district court has the authority to "designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition, by a judge of the court, of any motion." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). "The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).
The district court has appellate jurisdiction over any decisions the magistrate judge issues pursuant to such a referral. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. The standard of review that is applied by the district court depends on the nature of the matter considered by the magistrate judge. See Fed R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) ("The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to."); Baker v. Peterson, 67 Fed.App'x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003) ("A district court normally applies a clearly erroneous or contrary to law' standard of review for nondispositive preliminary measures. A district court must review dispositive motions under the de novo standard." (internal citations omitted)).
A. The Magistrate Judge's Reports and Recommendations
In her Reports and Recommendations, the Magistrate Judge examined four motions filed by the Defendant. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge's proposed conclusions of law are as follows:
1. Defendant's Motion to Amend and Adopt Docket Entry 37
The Defendant filed a Motion to Amend and Adopt Docket Entry 37 seeking to adopt a filing of previous counsel and to amend certain language within the original filing. (ECF No. 79). The Magistrate Judge concluded that the Defendant's Motion to Amend should be granted. Primarily, the Government does not oppose such amendment. (ECF Nos. 93 at 2; 97 at 9). The Magistrate ...