United States v. Ramos

“After conducting de novo review, the district court ‘may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.’” 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C).

Petitioner appealed from eight counts of acts related to transportation of noncitizens for profit in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1324. Petitioner moved to suppress his confession of these crimes as coerced. Petitioner argued the district court erred in applying the improper standard of review and adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny Petitioner’s motion to suppress without specifically addressing Petitioner’s objections. After the district court affirmed the magistrate judge’s denial, Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and argued the district court’s “terse order” proved they did not conduct de novo review.  “After conducting de novo review, the district court ‘may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.’” 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C). The Court reasoned that the court did not abuse its discretionary power by referencing the magistrate judge’s opinion and not adding more. The Court further reasoned that deference to a lower court’s factual finding is proper when “critical evidence is testimonial.” The Court concluded that the district court properly reviewed the magistrate’s order de novo and affirmed denial of Petitioner’s motions based on the factual findings in the record.  AFFIRMED.