Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Nickell

United States District Court, Sixth Circuit

October 15, 2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
RUSSELL DAVID NICKELL, Defendant.

OPINION & ORDER

KARL S. FORESTER, Senior District Judge.

This matter came before the Court upon the Supervised Release Violation Report dated May 15, 2013 [DE #93]. It was subsequently referred to United States Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins for a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 635(b)(1)(B) on September 13, 2013 [DE #97]. Magistrate Judge Atkins held a hearing on September 18, 2013 [DE #100], and issued his Report and Recommendation on September 23, 2013 [DE #102].

In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Atkins noted that Nickell stipulated to the six violations outlined in the Supervised Release Violation Report, waived his right of allocution before a United States District Judge, and requested that the United States Magistrate Judge recommend a sentence by written order [DE #100, 101]. Furthermore, the parties advised Magistrate Judge Atkins of a binding agreement for the Court's consideration in this matter which would impose a twelve (12) month sentence of imprisonment for the said violations to be immediately followed by a twenty-four (24) month period of supervised release. The agreement further provides that Nickell will also have to pay for and successfully complete a drug rehabilitation program during supervision as part of this agreement.

The Magistrate Judge, after reviewing the record, considering the arguments of the parties and their agreement, and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553, recommended that the Court sentence Nickell in accordance with the parties' agreement. Neither party has filed any objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.

"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." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Moreover, a party who fails to file objections to a Magistrate Judge's recommendation waives the right to appeal. See Wright v. Holbrook, 794 F.2d 1152, 1154-55 (6th Cir. 1986). Having examined the record, the Court is in agreement with Magistrate Judge Atkins' Report and Recommendation.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [DE #102] is ADOPTED and INCORPORATED by reference. A judgment in accordance with this Opinion & Order will be entered contemporaneously.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.