United States v. Santiago

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DECISION AND ORDER

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Defendant Shaumyk Santiago (“Defendant”) stands accused by way of a Superseding Indictment returned on March 25, 2021, with a narcotics conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (count one). (Dkt. 394). This Court referred all pretrial matters in the case to United States Magistrate Judge Mark W. Pedersen pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)-(B). (Dkt. 139; Dkt. 629).

On March 10, 2022, Magistrate Judge Pedersen issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court deny Defendant's pretrial motion to suppress evidence seized from his resident at 4 Florack Street, Rochester, New York, pursuant to a judicial search warrant. (Dkt. 644; see Dkt. 483). Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the parties had 14 days after being served a copy of the Report and Recommendation to file objections. Neither party has filed objections.

The Court is not required to review de novo those portions of a report and recommendation to which objections were not filed. Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2) (“Failure to object in accordance with this rule waives a party's right to review.”); see Molefe v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 602 F.Supp.2d 485, 487 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (to trigger the de novo review standard, objections to a report “must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate judge's proposal”).

Notwithstanding the lack of objections, the Court has conducted a careful review of the Report and Recommendation as well as the filings previously made in the case, and finds no reason to reject or modify the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Pedersen. Therefore, the Court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. (Dkt. 644). For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, this Court denies Defendant's motion to suppress evidence. (Dkt. 483).

SO ORDERED.