USA v. Prince

Filing 34

Order on Motion to Suppress

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ALASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
vs.
SHANNON PRINCE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:05-cr-117JWS

ORDER FROM CHAMBERS
[Re:

Motion at docket 17 ]

I. MOTION PRESENTED
At docket 17, defendant Shannon Prince moved to suppress evidence obtained
from a warrantless stop, search and arrest which took place on October 19, 2005, in
Anchorage, Alaska. The motion was fully briefed, and the magistrate judge filed an
initial report and recommendation at docket 25. Prince filed objections at docket 28.
The magistrate judge filed a final report and recommendation at docket 32.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate.”1 When reviewing a magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation in a case such as this one, the district court conducts de

1

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

novo review of all conclusions of law,2 and any findings of fact to which objections have
been made.3 Uncontested findings of fact are reviewed for clear error.4

III. DISCUSSION
Before deciding the motion, the magistrate judge conducted an evidentiary
hearing. A transcript was filed at docket 27. This court has reviewed the file including
the transcript of the evidentiary hearing and applied the standard of review articulated
above. Based thereon, this court can find no fault with the magistrate judge’s final
recommended findings and conclusions; Magistrate Judge Roberts correctly found the
facts and applied the law in his initial report as modified by his final report. For the
preceding reason, this court adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law
recommended by the magistrate judge. Based thereon, the motion at docket 17 is
DENIED.
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska this 28th day of February, 2006.

/s/
JOHN W. SEDWICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Barilla v. Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds by
Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996).
3

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

4

Taberer v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 954 F.2d 888, 906 (3d Cir. 1992).

-2-