United States District Court, E.D. Tennessee, Greeneville
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Jordan, United States District Judge.
defendant is charged with enticement of a minor, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b), and commission of a crime of
violence during interstate travel by an unregistered sex
offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2250(a) and
(d). He has filed a motion to suppress all evidence that was
seized from his motel room residence on February 5 and 6,
2016. [Doc. 18]. The United States has responded in
opposition to the motion. [Doc. 28].
defendant has also moved for severance of the two charges
against him. [Doc. 26]. The United States has again responded
in opposition. [Doc. 29].
States Magistrate Judge Clifton Corker conducted an
evidentiary hearing and heard arguments on July 20 and 27,
2017. Now before the court is the magistrate judge's
August 18, 2017 report and recommendation
(“R&R”), recommending that the
defendant's suppression motion be denied. [Doc. 37]. Also
before the court is the magistrate judge's order denying
severance. [Doc. 38].
defendant has filed objections to the R&R and has
appealed the severance ruling. [Docs. 39, 40]. The United
States has again responded in opposition. [Docs. 41, 42]. The
court has thoroughly reviewed the R&R, the
defendant's motions, the parties' briefing, the
transcript of the evidentiary hearings, and the various
exhibits. For the reasons that follow, the defendant's
R&R objections will be overruled and the severance ruling
will be affirmed.
R&R sufficiently sets forth the pertinent facts. Those
facts need not be repeated herein.
Standard of Review
defendant's objections, covering slightly more than two
pages, seek de novo review of the entire suppression
motion. [Doc. 40, p.3]. In so doing, the defendant
misapprehends the applicable standard of review.
true that a district court is both statutorily and
constitutionally required to conduct a de novo
review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
See United States v. Shami, 754 F.2d 670, 672
(6th Cir. 1985). However, it is necessary only to
review “those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.” See id.; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). A
district court need not provide de novo review where
objections to a report and recommendation are frivolous,
conclusive, or general. See Mira v. Marshall, 806
F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986).
defendant's R&R objections pertain to three
cellphones seized by law enforcement officers on February 6,
2016, the day after the defendant was taken into custody. In
the R&R, the magistrate judge found that the
defendant's wife, Tiffany Pendarvis, “called the
local sheriff's office and invited them back to her motel
room to search it after she discovered a Wal-Mart receipt and
prepaid phone card. The officers returned and searched her
room and found three ...