United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
T. FOWLKES, JR. United States District Judge.
the Court are Antonio Coach's (“Coach”)
Motion to Suppress filed on February 27, 2017, and Lorenzo
Seaberry's (“Seaberry”) Motion to Suppress
filed on March 16, 2017. (ECF Nos. 31 & 40). The United
States of America (the “Government”) filed its
Responses in Opposition on April 3, 2017. (ECF Nos. 45 &
46). This Court referred the instant motions to a Magistrate
Judge for Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b). (ECF Nos. 35 & 41). The Magistrate Judge
issued a Report and Recommendation on Defendants' Motions
to Suppress on June 6, 2017. (ECF No. 54). Coach and Seaberry
both filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation. (ECF Nos. 56 & 57). Subsequently, the
Government filed Responses to Defendants' Objections on
June 30, 2017. (ECF Nos. 58 & 59). After a de
novo review, the Court finds that the Report and
Recommendation should be Adopted.
Court may refer a motion to suppress in a criminal matter to
a magistrate judge for the purpose of conducting an
evidentiary hearing and to submit proposed findings of fact
and recommendations for the disposition of the motion. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The Court must “make a
de novo determination of those portions of the
report or specific proposed findings or recommendations to
which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C). However, the Court is not required to conduct a
de novo evidentiary hearing as part of its de
novo review. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S.
667, 674 (1980). After reviewing the evidence, the Court is
free to accept, reject, or modify the proposed findings or
recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. §
Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's proposed findings of
fact in this case. See (ECF No. 54).
Coach presents, essentially, five objections to the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation: 1) it is
unclear who determined that the vehicle pulled over in
Arkansas was registered to Coach at 2349 Curbertson in
Bartlett, Tennessee; 2) whether the amount of marijuana was
indicative of personal use, and the events prior to March 21
fail to show that detectives knew how long the trash can had
been at the curb; 3) Stale information was used to obtain the
search warrant; 4) the search warrant lacked sufficient
information to establish probable cause; and 5) the
Magistrate Judge's finding that he did not make the
necessary, substantial preliminary showing for a
Seaberry presents three objections to the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation: 1) his Motion to
Suppress should be granted because “Stale”
information was used to obtain the search warrant; 2) the
search warrant lacked sufficient information to establish
probable cause; and 3) the Magistrate Judge's finding
that he did not make the necessary, substantial preliminary
showing for a Franks hearing. The Court will address
these objections below.
Coach's First and Second Objections
“objects to the first paragraph of section A, page 2 in
that it was not clear who determined that the vehicle pulled
over in Arkansas was registered to Antonio Coach at 2349
Curbertson in Bartlett, Tennessee.” (ECF No. 57 at 2).
The Court finds Coach's first objection as a general
objection. While the objection is clearly a factual
objection, Coach fails to explain how this objection is of
consequence. The Sixth Circuit has emphasized that objections
are to be specific in order to narrowly focus the district
court's attention on the dispositive and contentious
issues. Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human
Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991) (citing
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148 (1985)) (“The
requirement of objections permitted the district court to
focus attention on those issues…that are at the heart
of the parties dispute…thereby preventing the district
court from being ‘sandbagged' by a failure to
object.”) Without a specific objection, it is difficult
for the Court to determine how the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Representation misrepresented the facts of this
case or what cause or issue the Plaintiff could find
objectionable. The failure to identify specific concerns with
a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation allows the
party's objection to be deemed a general objection.
McCready v. Kamminga, 113 F. App'x 47, 49 (6th
Cir. 2004) (citing Howard, 932 F.2d at 509).
also objects to
page 3 in the amount of marijuana was indicative of personal
use. Also, section A concerning the events prior to March 21
fails to show that detectives did not know how long the trash
had been at the curb. It could have been there over a week.
It also fails to state that anyone walking down the street
could have had access to the trash can for lengthy periods of
time. It further does not state that there was any direct
link to the trash can and the home except two pieces of mail.
In fact most evidence found linked Seaberry to the home and
(ECF No. 57 at 2). Coach's objection to the amount of
marijuana being indicative of personal use does not alter the
Court's probable cause analysis discussed below.
Additionally, the remaining parts of Coach's objection
invite undue speculation and ignores the requirement that
affidavits must be reviewed in their totality. The objection
seems to omit the fact that 194 pounds of marijuana was
discovered in a vehicle traveling from Dallas to Memphis, ...