Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Jones

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division

October 23, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLES A. “CHUCK” JONES and MARK J. WHITAKER, Defendants.

          ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          MARK S. NORRIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham's (ECF No. 42) Report and Recommendation (“Report”) on Defendant Charles Jones's Motion to Dismiss Counts 2, 3, and 4 of the Indictment (“Motion to Dismiss”) (ECF No. 31). The Report recommends that the Court deny Mr. Jones's Motion. (ECF No. 42.) Mr. Jones filed an Objection to the Report on May 20, 2019 (“Objection”). (ECF No. 43.) The Government timely responded to Mr. Jones's Objection on June 4, 2019. (ECF No. 46.) Mr. Jones filed a Reply to the Government's Response on June 18, 2019. (ECF No. 52.) For the following reasons, Mr. Jones's Objection is OVERRULED. The Report is ADOPTED and Mr. Jones's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 31) is DENIED.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 636 to relieve the burden on the federal judiciary by permitting the assignment of district court duties to magistrate judges. See United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 602 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 869-70 (1989)); see also Baker v. Peterson, 67 Fed.Appx. 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003). For dispositive matters, “[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). After reviewing the evidence, the court is free to accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's proposed findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court is not required to review-under a de novo or any other standard-those aspects of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). The district court should adopt the magistrate judge's findings and rulings to which no specific objection is filed. See Id. at 151.

         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.”). Each objection to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation should include how the analysis is wrong, why it was wrong, and how de novo review will obtain a different result on that particular issue. See Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991).

         A general objection, or one that merely restates the arguments previously presented and addressed by the Magistrate Judge, does not sufficiently identify alleged errors in the Report and Recommendation. Id. When an objection reiterates the arguments presented to the Magistrate Judge, the Report and Recommendation should be reviewed for clear error. Verdone v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 16-CV-14178, 2018 WL 1516918, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 2018) (citing Ramirez v. United States, 898 F.Supp.2d 659, 663 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)); Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 277 F.Supp.3d 932, 965 (E.D. Tenn. 2017).

         DISCUSSION

         First, Mr. Jones objects to the Magistrate Judge's finding that counts 2-4 in the indictment sufficiently allege venue.[1] (ECF No. 43 PageID 295-96.) As noted in the Report, counts 2-4 in the indictment read as follows:

On or about February 13, 2014, in the Western District of Tennessee and elsewhere,
CHARLES A. "CHUCK" JONES
being aided and abetted by A.J., did, for the purpose of executing and attempting to execute the aforesaid scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, knowingly cause to be transmitted by means of wire and radio communication in interstate commerce, writing, signs, signals, pictures and sounds, specifically a FCC Form 486 containing a false and fraudulent representation and certification.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, 1343.
. . . On or about March 15, 2014, in the Western District of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.