United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
Timothy C. Batten, Sr. United States District Judge.
case comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Justin S.
Anand's Final Reports and Recommendations (the
“R&Rs”) [151, 152, 153] which recommend
denying Defendant Dravion Ware's motion  for leave to
file motion that the complaint on which the warrant issued
could not support a finding of probable cause, denying
Ware's motion  to dismiss counts, and granting in
part and denying in part Ware's motion  to sever
counts. Regarding the motion to sever, the R&R recommends
(1) that the request for severance be denied, as the counts
are properly joined, and there are other mechanisms available
to handle any potential prejudice; (2) that to the extent
evidence of any of Defendant's prior convictions are
admitted anyway as relevant under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b), then no
relief is necessary, because there would be no additional
prejudice relating to a felon-in-possession count; and (3)
that to the extent evidence of Defendant's prior
convictions are not otherwise admitted as relevant under Rule
404(b), the Court conduct a bifurcated trial whereby the
felon-in-possession counts are tried immediately after any
verdict on the robbery and brandishment counts.
 at 1-2.
objections to the R&Rs have been filed.
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) (per curiam) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright,
677 F.2d 404, 408 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982)). This review may
take different forms, however, depending on whether there are
objections to the R&R. A 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); see also Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of
Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990) (A judge must
“give fresh consideration to those issues to which
specific objection has been made by a party.”). Those
portions of the R&R to which no objection is made need
only be reviewed for clear error. Macort v. Prem,
Inc., 208 Fed.Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (per
curiam) (quoting Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident
Ins., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005)).
filing objections must specifically identify those findings
objected to. Frivolous, conclusive or general objections need
not be considered by the district court.”
Nettles, 677 F.2d at 410 n.8. “This rule
facilitates the opportunity for district judges to spend more
time on matters actually contested and produces a result
compatible with the purposes of the Magistrates Act.”
Id. at 410.
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).
Court has conducted a careful and complete review of the
R&Rs and finds no clear error in their factual or legal
conclusions. Accordingly, the Court adopts as its order the
R&Rs [151, 152, 153]. Ware's motion  for leave
and motion  to dismiss are denied. Ware's motion
 to sever is granted in part and denied in part as noted
Macort dealt only with the
standard of review to be applied to a magistrate's
factual findings, but the Supreme Court has indicated that
there is no reason for the district court to apply a
different standard to a magistrate's legal conclusions.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Thus,
district courts in this circuit have routinely reviewed both
legal and factual conclusions for clear error. See Tauber
v. Barnhart, 438 F.Supp.2d 1366, 1373-74 (N.D.Ga. 2006)
(collecting cases). This is to be contrasted with the
standard of review on appeal, which distinguishes between the
two. See Monroe v. Thigpen, 932 F.2d 1437, 1440
(11th Cir. 1991) (holding that when a magistrate's
findings of fact are adopted by ...