USA v. Cusick

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
KAGAN PAUL CUSICK,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:19-cr-00034-SLG-DMS
ORDER RE FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO SUPRESS
Before the Court at Docket 36 is Defendant’s Motion to Suppress. 	The
Government responded in opposition at Docket 39. 	The motion was referred to
the Honorable Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Smith. 	At Docket 58, Judge Smith
issued her Initial Report and Recommendation, in which she recommended that
the motion be denied. 	Defendant filed objections to the Initial Report and
Recommendation at Docket 59. 	Judge Smith issued her Final Report and
Recommendation at Docket 60, in which she recommended that the motion be
denied. No further objections to the Final Report and Recommendation were filed.
The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). That
statute provides that a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”1 A court is
1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Case 3:19-cr-00034-SLG-DMS Document 61 Filed 03/11/20 Page 1 of 2

Case No. 3:19-cr-00034-SLG-DMS, USA v. Cusick
Order re Final Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion to Suppress
Page 2 of 2
to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge’s report
or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 2
But as to those topics on which no objections are filed, “[n]either the Constitution
nor [28U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and
recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.” 3
The magistrate judge recommended that the Court deny the Motion to
Supress. 	The Court has reviewed the Final Report and Recommendation and
agrees with its analysis. 	Accordingly, the Court adopts the Final Report and
Recommendation, and IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Suppress at Docket 36
is DENIED.
DATED this 10 th day of March, 2020 at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 Id.
3 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court
review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard,
when neither party objects to those findings.”).
Case 3:19-cr-00034-SLG-DMS Document 61 Filed 03/11/20 Page 2 of 2