United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Western Division
JEFFREY L. VIKEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Maurice Wilford filed a motion to suppress physical evidence
seized pursuant to a search warrant, (Docket 80). The
suppression motion was referred to the magistrate judge for a
report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and the standing order dated March 9, 2015. An
evidentiary hearing was held and Magistrate Judge Wollmann
issued a report and recommendation ("R&R") on
defendant's motion. (Docket 103). The magistrate judge
recommended defendant's motion to suppress physical
evidence be denied. Id. at p. 1. The defendant
timely filed his objections to the report and recommendation.
reasons stated below, the court finds the R&R is an
appropriate application of the law to the facts presented by
the parties at the suppression hearing. Defendant's
objections are overruled and the R&R is adopted in its
objections to the R&R are summarized as follows:
1. Mr. Wilford objects, generally to all factual findings and
legal conclusions made by the magistrate judge.
2. Mr. Wilford objects to the factual finding that the
sources of information in the affidavit in support of the
search warrant were reliable.
3. Mr. Wilford objects to the factual finding that there was
sufficient information in the affidavit to search his person
and his vehicle.
4. Mr. Wilford objects to the legal conclusion that the
search warrant as it pertained to him was supported by
5. Mr. Wilford objects to the legal conclusion that if the
search warrant was deficient, the Leon exception applies
and would permit the execution of the search warrant.
the Federal Magistrate Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), if a
party files written objections to the magistrate judge's
proposed findings and recommendations, the district court is
required to "make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made."
Id. The court may "accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge." Id. See also Fed. R.
Crim. P. 59(b)(3). The court completed a de novo review of
those portions of, the R&R to which objections were
defendant's objections will be separately addressed.
court completed a de novo review of the affidavit in support
of a search warrant, Suppression Hearing Exhibit 1 at pp.
1-7. Unless otherwise indicated, the court's findings of
fact are consistent with the findings made by the magistrate
WILFORD OB JECTS GENERALLY TO ALL FACTUAL FINDINGS AND LEGAL
CONCLUSIONS MADE BY THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
has mandated that the district court give de novo review to
those portions of a Magistrate's report and
recommendation to which objections are made." Belk
v. Purkett, 15 F.3d 803. 815 (8th Cir. 1994)
(referencing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). "There is a
court-created exception in some circuits: '. . . [T]he
district court need not conduct de novo review when a party
makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct
the court to a specific error in the magistrate judge's
proposed findings and recommendations.'"
Id. (citing Johnson v. Knable, 934 F.2d 319
4th Cir. 1991) (unpublished opinion) (citing Orpiano v.
Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47-48 (4th Cir. 1982); United
States v. Merz, 376 U.S. 192, 199, 84 (1964);
Pendleton v. Rumsfeld, 628 F.2d 102, 105-06 (D.C.
Cir. 1980)), "There is language in an Eighth Circuit
case which indicates this Circuit's approval of such an
exception." Id. (referencing Branch v.
Martin, 886 F.2d 1043 (8th Cir. 1989) ("In the
present case, plaintiffs objections to the magistrate's
factual conclusions were timely filed and specific enough to
trigger de novo review). See, e.g., Goney v. Clark,
749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984) (per curiam) (no de novo review
if objections are untimely or general)"). "[D]e
novo review is not required 'when a party makes general
and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a
specific error in the magistrate judge's proposed
findings and recommendations.'" Hudson v.
Gammon, 46 F.3d 785, 786 (8th Cir. 1995) (citing
Belk, 15 F.3d at 815) (citations omitted).
court will address Mr. Wilford's specific objections to
the R&R as they are "certainly definite enough to
require de novo review." Id. (citing
Belk, 15 F.3d at 815). The court is not compelled to
evaluate defendant's generalized and conclusory