Opinion
No. 2:08-cr-38.
July 14, 2009
ORDER
This criminal case is before the court on the report and recommendation of magistrate judge Dennis H. Inman [doc. 216] that the defendant's motion to dismiss the Fourth Superseding Indictment for violations of the Speedy Trial Act [doc. 206] be denied. Neither the defendant nor the government have filed any objections to the report and recommendation, and no transcript of the hearing on the motion has been prepared.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), a de novo review by the district court of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation is both statutorily and constitutionally required. See United States v. Shami, 754 F.2d 670, 672 (6th Cir. 1985). However, it is necessary only to review "those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); see also United States v. Campbell, 261 F.3d 628, 631-32 (6th Cir. 2001).
The court has reviewed de novo the report and recommendation and the pleadings, and ADOPTS the findings of fact and conclusions of law set out in the report and recommendation. The court agrees with Judge Inman that the defendant's pretrial detention is of some concern, but it does not yet reach a presumptively prejudicial threshold. Further there is no violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3161, the Speedy Trial Act, because not all the defendants are in custody. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(6). Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendant's motion to dismiss the Fourth Superseding Indictment for violations of his speedy trial rights is DENIED.