Clearly erroneous standard does not apply to review of a USMJ’s R&R

When the district court erroneously applied the clearly erroneous standard to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, the judgment had to be reversed and remanded. United States v. Quinney, 238 Fed. Appx. 150, 2007 FED App. 0517N (6th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished):

Thus while it is possible that the district judge in this case actually applied one standard of review but mistakenly told his readers that he was applying a different one, it is equally possible that the district judge not only wrote down the wrong standard but also applied that wrong standard as well. Indeed, both the deferential language used by the district court (noting several times that it “agrees” with the magistrate judge’s conclusions), as well as the court’s cursory treatment of the legal issues (one short paragraph on inevitable discovery, and one even shorter paragraph on alleged Miranda violations), tend to indicate that the district court did what it said it would do: namely, conduct a clearly erroneous review of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. And because the proper standard of review in such a case is indisputably de novo, see Curtis, 237 F.3d at 603, the district court applied the incorrect standard in reviewing the magistrate judge’s report.

Named informant was not attested to be reliable, but the police showed how they corroborated him by finding drugs hidden in a public restroom where defendant did a drug deal. He also said that he had been to defendant’s house and seen drug deals there. Probable cause and a nexus to the premises was shown. United States v. Smith, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52527 (E.D. Mich. July 20, 2007).*

Police visits to an adult bookstore hardly rise to the level of “domestic surveillance.” “Plaintiff was in a store, a public venue; he was present with co-workers and thus displayed neither a subjective nor objective expectation of privacy. In other words, Plaintiff was in ‘plain view’ and Clift did not conduct a “search.” See Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463, 471 (1985) (detective’s presence in store to which the public was invited did not violate Fourth Amendment); ….” Lowe v. Clift, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52523 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2007).

City avoids liability for alleged excessive force claim where there was no showing of policy or negligent training or supervision. Bell v. City of Topeka, 496 F. Supp. 2d 1182 (D. Kan. 2007).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.