UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
January 24, 2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Seybert, District Judge:
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court is in receipt of Magistrate Judge William D. Wall's Report and Recommendation, dated October 21, 2010 ("Report and Recommendation" or "R&R"), recommending that Defendant's motion to suppress be denied. Presently pending before the Court is Defendant's objections to the Report and Recommendation.
The Report and Recommendation sets forth the facts of this case in a thorough manner, and therefore, the Court will not recite those facts again.
"When evaluating the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, the district court may adopt those portions of the report to which no objections have been made and which are not facially erroneous." Walker v. Vaughan, 216 F. Supp. 2d 290, 291 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (citation omitted). A party may serve and file specific, written objections to a magistrate's report and recommendation within ten days of receiving the recommended disposition. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). Upon receiving any timely objections to the magistrate's recommendation, the district "court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A party that objects to a report and recommendation must point out the specific portions of the report and recommendation to which they object. See Barratt v. Joie, No. 96-CV-324, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3453, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. March 4, 2002) (citations omitted).
When a party raises an objection to a magistrate judge's report, the Court must conduct a de novo review of any contested sections of the report. See Pizarro v. Bartlett, 776 F. Supp. 815, 817 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).
The Defendant's objections to the R&R have been reviewed under the de novo standard of review. Upon that review, the Defendant's objections are rejected as without merit and the R&R is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. The motion to suppress is DENIED.
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J.
Central Islip, NY
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.