United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION TO DENY DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
T. Fowlkes, Jr. United States District Judge
the Court is Defendant Silvio Lucchesi’s Motion to
Suppress Search, filed on February 20, 2019. (ECF No. 38.)
The United States filed its Response opposing the Motion on
March 4, 2019. (ECF No. 44.) The Motion was referred to the
Chief Magistrate Judge, (ECF No. 42), who held a hearing on
the matter on April 30, 2019. (See ECF No. 52.) On
June 12, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation (the “Report”) on
Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, suggesting that the
Motion should be denied because the officers were lawfully
present in Defendant’s residence when they observed
illegal drugs in plain view and then, based on that
information, obtained a warrant and executed a search of the
residence. (ECF No. 58, 21-22.) The Defendant did not file
any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
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, proposed
findings of fact in this case. (ECF No. 58, 4–12.)
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.”). Motions to suppress evidence are among the
motions in criminal cases that are subject to de
novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636
(b)(1)(A); U.S. Fid. & Guarantee Co. v. Thomas
Solvent Co., 955 F.2d 1085, 1088 (6th Cir. 1992).
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 to Suppress the search of his residence should be
denied. (ECF No. 58, 3, 22.) The Report states that any
objection held by either party must be filed within fourteen
(14) days after the service of the Report. (Id. at
23.); see also 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.”) Neither party filed
objections to the Report within the allotted time.
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 ...