Timothy C. Batten, Sr. United States District Judge
ORDER
This case comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand's report and recommendation (the "R&R") [85], which recommends denying Defendant Roman A. Brown's motion [68] to suppress statements. No objections have been filed.
Separately, Brown also filed a motion [69] to join his case for trial with co-conspirators charged in a separate case, United States v. Adams, et al., 1:19-cr-217-TCB-JSA. In the R&R, the magistrate judge noted that if this Court denied the motion [68] to suppress, consolidation should likewise be denied because Brown's statement could implicate his co-defendants. Finding that a determination on this issue was premature at the time the R&R was issued, however, the magistrate judge deferred consideration of Brown's motion [69] for joinder to this Court. Nevertheless, a motion to consolidate is inherently a matter of trial scheduling and management. Accordingly, the Court will reserve consideration of Brown's motion [69] to consolidate until a juncture closer to trial, when it is more clear which Defendants will ultimately go to trial.
A district judge has a duty to conduct a "careful and complete" review of a magistrate judge's R&R. Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 408 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982)). This review may take different forms, however, depending on whether there are objections to the R&R. The district judge must "make a de novo determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In contrast, those portions of the R&R to which no objection is made need only be reviewed for "clear error." Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (quoting Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005)).
Macort dealt only with the standard of review to be applied to a magistrate's factual findings, but the Supreme Court has indicated that there is no reason for the district court to apply a different standard to a magistrate's legal conclusions. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Thus, district courts in this circuit have routinely reviewed both legal and factual conclusions for clear error. See Tauber v. Barnhart, 438 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1373-74 (N.D. Ga. 2006) (collecting cases). This is to be contrasted with the standard of review on appeal, which distinguishes between the two. See Monroe v. Thigpen, 932 F.2d 1437, 1440 (11th Cir. 1991) (holding that when a magistrate's findings of fact are adopted by the district court without objection, they are reviewed on appeal under a "plain error standard" while questions of law always remain subject to de novo review). --------
After conducting a complete and careful review of the R&R, the district judge "may accept, reject, or modify" the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Williams, 681 F.2d at 732. The district judge "may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
The Court has conducted a careful and complete review of the R&R and finds no clear error in its factual or legal conclusions. Accordingly, the Court adopts as its Order the R&R [85].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of December, 2019.
/s/_________
Timothy C. Batten, Sr.
United States District Judge