Opinion
3:21-cr-00052-JMK-MMS
02-07-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. KIRT SAINILA FILOIALII, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JOSHUA M. KINDRED, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court are Mr. Filoialii's Motion to Suppress at Docket 136, with sealed exhibits at Docket 138. The Motion to Suppress was referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Matthew M. Scoble. The Government responded in opposition at Docket 142. Judge Scoble issued his Final Report and Recommendations at Docket 144, in which he recommended that the motion be denied. Mr. Filoialii filed objections the Final Report and Recommendation at Dockets 145.
The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). That statute provides that a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”A court is to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge's report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” But as to those topics on which no objections are filed, “[n]either the Constitution nor [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”
Id.
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”).
Mr. Filoialii objects to the Final Report and Recommendation on two grounds: (1) Magistrate Scoble's assessment that D.T.'s medical records support probable cause; and (2) Mr. Filoialii has made a sufficient showing to merit a hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware. The Court has reviewed the Motion to Suppress, the sealed exhibits, the Government's response, and Mr. Filoialii's objections. Further, the Court independently evaluated the factual and legal arguments raised in Mr. Filoialii's objections. Upon its review, the Court finds Mr. Filoialii's objections lack merit.
Docket 145.
United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 434 (9th Cir. 2023) (articulating that “the district court ha[s] no obligation to provide individualized analysis of each objection.”).
The magistrate judge recommended that the Court deny the Motion to Suppress. The Court has reviewed the Final Report and Recommendations and agrees with its analyses. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Final Report and Recommendation at Docket 144. The Motion to Suppress at Docket 136 is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.