USA v. Patterson

Filing 63

Order on Motion for Hearing, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ALASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
vs.
JOSHUA MICHAEL PATTERSON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:06-cr-00010 JWS
ORDER FROM CHAMBERS
[Re:

Dockets 41 and 46]

I. MOTION PRESENTED
At docket 41, defendant Joshua Michael Patterson moved to sever the charges
against him, asking that they be addressed in separate trials. At docket 46, Patterson
moved for an evidentiary hearing on the motion to sever. The motions were briefed by
the parties. Thereafter, the magistrate judge considered the parties’ paper and then
filed an initial report and recommendation at docket 56. In that report, Magistrate Judge
Roberts recommended that Patterson’s motion to sever at docket 41 be granted in part
and denied in part; he recommended that the two felon-in-possession charges be
severed for separate trial, while the three armed robbery of financial institution charges,
the three brandishing of firearms charges, and the two possession of stolen firearms
charges would remain joined for trial. The magistrate judge also recommended that the
request for an evidentiary hearing be denied, because a hearing was unnecessary to
the proper disposition of the motion to sever. Patterson filed objections at docket 57 to
which the government did not respond. The magistrate judge filed a final report and
recommendation at docket 58 in which he declined to modify his initial
recommendations.

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
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
Having applied the standard in Section II above, this court concludes that
Magistrate Judge Roberts has correctly found the facts and applied the law. His
discussion is thorough and clearly expressed. There is no need for this court to add any
additional commentary. 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 41 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: All of the
charges, except the two felon-in-possession charges, will be tried together in the first
trial. Thereafter, the felon-in-possession charges in counts 9 and 10 will be tried in a
second trial. The motion at docket 46 is DENIED.
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 18th day of May 2006.
/s/
JOHN W. SEDWICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

1

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

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-