United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington
May 21, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
DAVEY WAYNE BRUMMETT, Defendant.
DANNY C. REEVES, District Judge.
On October 3, 2013, a federal grand jury returned a two-count indictment, charging Defendant Davey Wayne Brummett with possessing numerous weapons, including a shortbarreled firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) and 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). [Record No. 1] The indictment also sought forfeiture of the firearms and ammunition seized at the time of Brummett's arrest on May 9, 2013. On December 5, 2013, a superseding indictment was returned which included an additional charge that Brummett "willfully and knowingly did embezzle, steal, and purloin money of the Unites States Social Security Administration of the value of approximately $26, 296.00 more or less" in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. The forfeiture allegation contained in the superseding indictment was supplemented to include currency in the amount of $26, 000.00.
On March 7, 2014, Brummett moved the Court to suppress the evidence seized in connection with the search of his property on May 9, 2013. [Record No. 34] The motion was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Robert E. Wier for the purpose of conducting an evidentiary hearing and issuing a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). This hearing was conducted on March 18, 2014. On May 2, 2014, Magistrate Judge Wier issued his Recommended Disposition regarding Defendant Brummett's motion to suppress. [Record No. 45] After carefully analyzing the issues raised in Brummett's motion, the Magistrate Judge has recommended that the relief he seeks be denied. Brummett has not filed objections to the Recommended Disposition within the time provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
While this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Magistrate Judge's recommendations to which an objection is made, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), "[i]t 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). And while Brummett has failed to object, the Court has nevertheless conducted a de novo review of the issues raised in his motion. However, the undersigned is in complete agreement with the Magistrate Judge's recommendations. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
1. The Recommended Disposition of United States Magistrate Judge Robert E. Wier [Record No. 45] is ADOPTED and INCORPORATED herein by reference.
2. Defendant Davey Wayne Brummett's Motion to Suppress [Record No. 34] is DENIED.