United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington
DANNY C. REEVES, District Judge.
This matter is pending for consideration of the Recommended Disposition regarding Defendant Antonio Jerome Hollis' motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop. [Record Nos. 53, 92] A motion to continue Hollis' deadline for filing a motion for rearraignment is also pending. [Record No. 95] Following an evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress, Magistrate Judge Robert E. Wier recommended that the Court deny the motion on October 22, 2014. [Record No. 92] No objections were filed within the shortened time provided by the Magistrate Judge. Having fully considered the matter, the Court will adopt the magistrate judge's recommendation in full.
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). Moreover, a party who fails to file objections to a magistrate judge's proposed findings of fact and recommendation waives the right to appeal. See United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 582, 587 (6th Cir. 2008); Wright v. Holbrook, 794 F.2d 1152, 1154-55 (6th Cir. 1986). Nonetheless, after review, the Court agrees that the traffic stop was valid for the reasons stated within the recommended disposition. The subsequent search was properly founded on both probable cause and consent.
Additionally, the Court has reviewed Hollis' motion to continue the deadline for filing a motion for rearraignment. [Record No. 95] While continuances are typically disfavored by the Court, counsel's affidavit in support of the motion establishes good cause for the brief continuance sought. Accordingly, it is
1. The Recommended Disposition of Magistrate Judge Robert E. Wier [Record No. 92] is ADOPTED and INCORPORATED by reference;
2. Defendant Antonio Jerome Hollis' motion to suppress [Record No. 53] is DENIED; and
3. Defendant Antonio Jerome Hollis' motion for an extension of time to file a motion for rearraignment [Record No. 95] is GRANTED. Any motion for rearraignment filed on or before ...