USA v. Soto-Lopez

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
REY JOEL SOTO-LOPEZ,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:19-cr-00114-JMK-MMS-1
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court at Docket 17 is Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence.
The Government responded in opposition at Docket 21. Defendant replied at Docket 34.
The motion was referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Matthew M. Scoble. 	On
January 1, 28, 2020, Judge Scoble held an evidentiary hearing and took the matter under
advisement. 	At Docket 59, Judge Scoble issued his Initial Report and Recommendation,
in which he recommended that the motion be denied. 	Defendant objected to the Initial
Report and Recommendation at Docket 60, to which the Government replied at Docket 61.
Judge Scoble issued his Final Report and Recommendation at Docket 68, in which he
recommended that the motion be denied. 	No objections to the Final Report and
Recommendation at Docket 68 were filed. 	This Court adopted the Final Report and
Recommendation on its own order at Docket 71.
Case 3:19-cr-00114-JMK-MMS Document 264 Filed 12/06/22 Page 1 of 3

United States v. Soto-Lopez 	Case No. 3:19-cr-00114-JMK-MMS-1
Order Adopting Report and Recommendation 	Page 2
On January 13, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Reconsider Denial of
Defendant’s First Motion to Suppress Evidence [Doc. 17] at Docket 226. 	The Court
granted the Motion to Reconsider and resubmitted the matter to Judge Scoble for additional
consideration at Docket 234. 	On April 15, 2022, Judge Scoble held another evidentiary
hearing and took the motion under advisement. Judge Scoble issued an Initial Report and
Recommendation, in which he recommended the motion be denied in part and granted in
part at Docket 251. 	No objections were filed. 	Judge Scoble issued his Final Report and
Recommendation at Docket 255. The Government moved for leave to file late objections
at Docket 258, to which Defendant responded in opposition at Docket 259. Judge Scoble
denied the Government’s motion to file late objections at Docket 260.
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 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 [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)] requires a
district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves
accept as correct.”3
1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
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-00114-JMK-MMS Document 264 Filed 12/06/22 Page 2 of 3

United States v. Soto-Lopez 	Case No. 3:19-cr-00114-JMK-MMS-1
Order Adopting Report and Recommendation 	Page 3
The magistrate judge recommended that the Court deny in part and grant in
part the Motion to Suppress Evidence. 	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 Evidence
at Docket 17 is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of December, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
United States District Judge
Case 3:19-cr-00114-JMK-MMS Document 264 Filed 12/06/22 Page 3 of 3