United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
H. MAYS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court are two motions filed by Defendant Nickey Ardd: (1)
Motion To Suppress Controlled Substance Evidence (ECF No. 67)
and (2) Motion to Reconsider Order Denying In Part Motion to
Suppress and requesting a Franks hearing (ECF No. 68), both
filed on May 23, 2017. On July 26, 2017, United States
Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham issued a Report and
Recommendation (the “Report”). (ECF No. 83.) The
Report recommends that both motions be denied. (Id.
August 11, 2017, Defendant filed a motion asking to extend
the deadline to file objections to the Report to August 14,
2017. (ECF No. 88.) The Court granted the motion the same
day. (ECF No. 89.) On August 17, 2017, Defendant filed
untimely ob- jections to the Report. (ECF No.
On September 1, 2017, the Government responded to the
objections. (ECF No. 91.)
following reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate
Judge's Report. The Motion to Reconsider and request for
a Franks hearing are DENIED. The Motion to Suppress is
facts are stated more fully in the Order dated April 18,
2017. (ECF No. 63.)
April 27, 2016, a federal grand jury returned a five-count
indictment against Defendant. (ECF No. 1.) Among the charges
against Defendant was one count of possessing, with intent to
distribute, a detectable amount of cocaine, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
September 22, 2016, Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress.
(ECF No. 23.) The Court referred the Motion to Suppress to
Magistrate Judge Pham. (ECF No. 24.) After a hearing on the
Motion to Suppress, the Magistrate Judge entered his Report
and Recommendation. (ECF No. 53.) On March 2, 2017, the
Magistrate Judge entered an Amended Report and Recommendation
that made minor changes to the original. (ECF No. 54) On
April 18, 2017, the Court adopted the Report in part and
issued an order denying the motion to suppress. (ECF No. 63.)
23, 2017, Defendant filed two more pre-trial motions. The
first seeks to suppress the cocaine he allegedly purchased
from undercover officers on July 16, 2015. (ECF No. 67.) The
second seeks reconsideration of the Court's April 18,
2017 Order, and requests a Franks hearing on the search
warrant affidavit signed by Detective Harold Tellez of the
Memphis Police Department. (ECF No. 68.)
26, 2017, the Magistrate Judge entered his Report (ECF No.
83.) The Report recommends denial of both motions.
(Id. at 553.)
JURISDICTION & STANDARD OF REVIEW
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).
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(a). The standard of
review depends on the nature of the matter considered by the
magistrate judge. “[U]pon proper objection by a party,
a district court must review de novo a magistrate
judge's ruling on a motion to suppress.” United
States v. Quinney, 238 F. App'x 150, 152 (6th Cir. 2007)
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Curtis,
237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001)).
Court need not review -- under a de novo or any
other standard -- those aspects of a report and
recommendation to which no objection is made. Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 150-52 (1985). Objections to any part of a
Magistrate Judge's disposition “must be clear
enough to enable the district court to discern those issues
that are dispositive and contentious.” Miller v.
Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995); see also Arn, 474
U.S. at 147 (stating that the purpose of the rule is to
“focus attention on those issues . . . that are at the
heart of the parties' dispute.”). A general,
frivolous, or conclusory objection will be treated as if no
objection had been made. Howard v. Sec'y of Health &
Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991); see also
Mira v. ...