United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION TO DENY DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN
T. Fowlkes, Jr. United States District Judge
the Court is Defendant Silvio Lucchesi’s Motion In
Limine to prevent the government from introducing evidence
related to the opening and use of Defendant’s residence
for the purpose of distributing and using heroin between
September 1, 2017 and March 9, 2018; the Motion was filed on
February 20, 2019. (ECF No. 39.) Specifically, Defendant
requests the Court exclude “all testimony or evidence
relating to Defendant’s unlawfully and knowingly
open[ing], leas[ing], rent[ing], us[ing], or maintaining his
residence at 2254 Littlemore Drive in Memphis, Tennessee for
the purpose of the distribution or the use of heroin from on
or about September 1, 2017 through March 9, 2018.” (ECF
No. 39, 1.) The United States filed its Response opposing
Defendant’s Motion In Limine on March 4, 2019. (ECF No.
Motion was referred to the Chief Magistrate Judge. (ECF No.
42). On June 12, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
and Recommendation (the “Report”) on
Defendant’s Motion In Limine, suggesting that the
Motion should be denied for three reasons: 1) evidence of
Defendant’s use of the residence during that time
period is “significantly probative” in this case
and does not risk creating a substantial and unfair prejudice
to Defendant in violation of Fed.R.Evid. 403; 2) the evidence
does not affect Defendant’s standing to challenge a law
enforcement search of his residence that took place on
September 23, 2017; and 3) the evidence is not subject to
exclusion due to selective prosecution by the government.
(ECF No. 57, 6-9.) The Defendant did not file any objections
to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
following reasons, the Court finds that the
Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation should be
ADOPTED and Defendant’s Motion to Suppress should be
Report and Recommendation, the Chief Magistrate Judge
provides, and this Court adopts and incorporates, the
procedural background in this case. (ECF No. 57, 2–4.)
passed 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) “to relieve some of the
burden on the federal courts by permitting the assignment of
certain district court duties to magistrates.”
United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir.
2001). Pursuant to the provision, magistrate judges may hear
and determine any pretrial matter pending before the Court,
except various dispositive motions. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A). Regarding those excepted dispositive motions,
magistrate judges may still hear and submit to the district
court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for
disposition. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
standard of review that is applied by the district court
depends on the nature of the matter considered by the
magistrate judge. See Baker v. Peterson, 67 F.
App’x 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted)
(“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.”). Upon review of the evidence, the district
court may accept, reject, or modify the proposed findings or
recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). Any party who disagrees with a magistrate’s
proposed findings and recommendation may file written
objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the
district court is not required to review any aspect of the
magistrate’s report and recommendation that is not
objected to by either party. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140, 150, 106 S.Ct. 466, 472, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). A
district judge should adopt the findings and rulings of the
magistrate judge to which no specific objection is filed.
Id. at 151.
Chief Magistrate Judge recommends that Defendant’s
Motion in Limine should be denied. (ECF No. 57, 10.) Both
parties were required to file objections within fourteen (14)
days after the service of the Report. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C) (“Within fourteen days after being
served with a copy [of the Report], any party may serve and
file written objections to such proposed findings and
recommendations as provided by rules of court.”). Here,
neither party filed any objections to the Report within the
absence of any objections, this Court is encouraged to adopt
the Report in its entirety. Arn, 474 U.S. at 151.
Adopting the Report is consistent with the purposes of §
636, particularly judicial economy and protecting against the
“duplication of time and effort” caused when
“both the magistrate and the district court perform
identical tasks.” Howard v. Sec'y of Health
& Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991).
de novo review, the Court hereby
ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation to DENY ...