United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
July 16, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
EDWARD SHANE SMALLWOOD, Defendant.
TIMOTHY C. BATTEN, Sr., District Judge.
This case is before the Court is the magistrate judge's report and recommendation . No objections to the R&R have been filed.
A district judge has a duty to conduct a "careful and complete" review of a magistrate judge's R&R. Williams v. Wainwright , 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright , 677 F.2d 404, 408 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc)) (internal quotation mark omitted). This review may take different forms, however, depending on whether there are objections to the R&R. The district judge must "make a de novo determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In contrast, those portions of the R&R to which no objection is made need only be reviewed for clear error. Macort v. Prem, Inc. , 208 F.App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
After conducting a complete and careful review of the R&R, the district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Williams , 681 F.2d at 732. The district judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
The Court has conducted a careful and complete review of the R&R and finds no clear error in its factual findings or legal conclusions. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS AS ITS ORDER the R&R . Accordingly, Defendant Edward Smallwood's motions to suppress evidence and statements [20 & 21], as well as his motion to dismiss counts one and three of the indictment, or, in the alternative, for a bill of particulars  is DENIED, and his motion to suppress the testimony and statements of Mrs. Smallwood is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
IT IS SO ORDERED.