WILLIAM HODGES, Senior District Judge
On July 6, 2006, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report (Doc. 60) recommending that the Defendant's Motions to Suppress Evidence (Docs. 22, 23, 24) be denied. The Defendant has filed objections (Doc. 63) to the report, however, the Government has not filed any responses to the objections, and the time for responding has elapsed.
Upon an independent, de novo examination of the file and upon due consideration, it is adjudged that:
(1) The Defendant's objections (Doc. 63) are OVERRULED. The Defendant has not raised any new issues or law or fact that the Magistrate Judge failed to consider, nor has the Defendant pointed to any errors by the Magistrate Judge. Rather, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge conducted a thorough and detailed examination of all of the evidence, and that his analysis of applicable law is correct. In particular, the Court disagrees that any coercive statements were made, and agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the Defendant voluntarily consented to the search and to the removal of his computer, and that there are no issues of staleness.
(2) The United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations (Doc. 60) is adopted, confirmed and made a part hereof; and
(3) The Defendant's Motions to Suppress (Docs. 22, 23, 24) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DONE and ORDERED.