United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
H. COHEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
action comes before the Court on the Final Report and
Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Alan
J. Baverman [Doc. 64] recommending that Defendant's
Motion to Suppress Evidence [Doc. 17], Motion to Suppress
Statements [Doc. 18], Supplemental Motion to Suppress
Evidence [Doc. 26], and Supplemental Motion to Statements
[Doc. 27] be granted in part and denied in part. The Order
for Service of the R&R [Doc. 65] provided notice that, in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties were
authorized to file objections within fourteen (14) days of
the receipt of that Order. Defendant has filed his objections
to the R&R [Doc. 67] ("Def.'s Objs.").
reviewing a Magistrate Judge's R&R, the district
court "shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). "Parties filing objections to a
magistrate's report and recommendation must specifically
identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive,
or general objections need not be considered by the district
court." United States v. Schultz. 565 F.3d
1353, 1361 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Marsden v.
Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988)). If there
are no specific objections to factual findings made by the
Magistrate Judge, there is no requirement that those findings
be reviewed de novo. Garvev v. Vaughn. 993 F.2d 776,
779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). Absent
objection, the district court judge "may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge," 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1), and may accept the recommendation if it is
not clearly erroneous or contrary to the law. FED. R. Crim.
P. 59(a). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court
has conducted a de novo review of those portions of
the R&R to which Defendant objects and has reviewed the
remainder of the R&R for plain error. See United
States v. Slav. 714 F.2d 1093. 1095 (11th Cir. 1983).
initial matter, Defendant "reiterates, relies on, and
incorporates by reference all of his factual allegations and
legal conclusions in his previously filed motions and
supporting brief." Def.'s Objs. at 1. "[A]
party does not state a valid objection to an R&R by
merely incorporating by reference previous filings."
Hammonds v. Jackson, No. 13-CV-711-MHS, 2015 WL
12866453, at *6 n.2 (N.D.Ga. May 18, 2015); see also
Masimo Corp. v. Philips Elec. N.A. Corp., 62 F.Supp.3d
368, 376 (D. Del. 2014) (holding that underlying briefs may
not be incorporated by reference when riling objections to a
report and recommendation); Morrison v. Parker, 90
F.Supp.2d 876, 878 (W.D. Mich. 2000) (citations omitted)
("Plaintiffs' general, nonspecific objections,
purporting to incorporate by reference their earlier brief,
are tantamount to no objection at all and do not warrant
further review."). Accordingly, the Court will not
review the prior arguments made by Defendant to the
Magistrate Judge, but only will consider specific objections
made to the R&R.
The November 28, 2016, Traffic Stop and Arrest
objects to the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that some of
his post-arrest statements made during an approximately
25-second conversation with Officer Anthony Paniagua were
made voluntarily and not in response to the questioning by
the police officer. Def.'s Objs. at 1-2. The chronology
of the conversation between Officer Paniagua and Defendant
was as follows:
• Officer Paniagua initiated a traffic stop on a Honda
Civic driven by Defendant based on an expired tag.
• After obtaining Defendant's driver's license
and running it, Officer Paniagua found that the license was
suspended, arrested Defendant for driving with a suspended
license, and placed him in the back of his patrol car.
• Defendant was not advised of his
• Based upon the odor of marijuana coming from the
vehicle, Paniagua and another officer searched the vehicle
and found a Glock firearm inside an unlocked glove box.
• Officer Paniagua asked Defendant, "Is this your
Glock?" to which Defendant responded, "Nah, nah,
that's my cousin's car." • Defendant asked
Officer Paniagua if he would let "Damien drive my
car," and Officer Paniagua responded, "Yeah"
and informed Defendant that the weapon would be taken into
• Defendant then said, whoever owns the gun, it was
"clean." • Officer Paniagua again asked
Defendant if the gun was his, and Defendant ...