Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Motions
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Motions
Attorney(S)
Judges

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Donald Thomas Perrin, Defendant.

Wilhelmina M. Wright United States District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the May 2, 2017 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz. (Dkt. 35.) Because no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed, Defendant's right to de novo review of the Report and Recommendation has been waived. United States v. Newton, 259 F.3d 964, 966 (8th Cir. 2001). When reviewing nondispositive decisions and dispositive recommendations to which no objection has been made, this Court determines whether the decision or recommendation is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59; accord Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, the Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

"There is a split in authority in this District about the proper standard of review on a motion to sever an indictment." United States v. Montanari, No. 14-0161, 2014 WL 4541120, at *1 n.1 (D. Minn. Sept. 11, 2014) (comparing cases in which motion to sever is deemed nondispositive and cases in which motion to sever is deemed dispositive). However, because a criminal defendant waives the right to de novo review of a Report and Recommendation to which no objections have been made, this distinction is inconsequential here. See Newton, 259 F.3d at 966; see generally 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59. --------

ORDER

Based on the foregoing analysis and all the files, records and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The May 2, 2017 Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 35), is ADOPTED;

2. Defendant Donald Thomas Perrin's pretrial motion for severance of counts, (Dkt. 18), is DENIED;

3. Defendant Donald Thomas Perrin's pretrial motion for suppression of all evidence obtained pursuant to the execution of a search warrant dated February 18, 2016, (Dkt. 20), is DENIED AS MOOT; and

4. Defendant Donald Thomas Perrin's pretrial motion for suppression of all evidence obtained pursuant to the execution of a search warrant dated February 23, 2016, (Dkt. 22), is DENIED AS MOOT. Dated: August 1, 2017

s/Wilhelmina M. Wright


Wilhelmina M. Wright


United States District Judge

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

United States v. Perrin
(Aug 1, 2017)