A blanket objection to a USMJ R&R in a search claim is unavailing; the objecting party has to be specific as to the objections. United States v. Soderholm, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130727 (D. Neb. November 9, 2011):<\/p>\n
The Eighth Circuit has held that \u201ceven when a magistrate judge is hearing a matter pursuant to his or her limited authority to make a \u2018recommended disposition,\u2019 \u2018a claimant must present all his claims squarely to the magistrate judge, that is, the first adversarial forum, to preserve them for review.\u2019\u201d … See also Roberts, 222 F.3d at 470 (\u201c[The] purpose of referring cases to a magistrate for recommended disposition would be contravened if parties were allowed to present only selected issues to the magistrate, reserving their full panoply of contentions for the trial court.\u201d … Other courts have found, however, that because 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 636(b)(1) allows the district court to \u201creceive further evidence\u201d after a party objects to the magistrate judge\u2019s recommendation, district courts may consider new arguments raised for the first time in an objection. … The Fourth Circuit has gone further, holding that \u201cas part of its obligation to determine de novo any issue to which proper objection is made, a district court is required to consider all arguments directed to that issue, regardless of whether they were raised before the magistrate [judge].\u201d United States v. George, 971 F.2d 1113, 1118 (4th Cir. 1992). See also id. at 1118 n.6 (noting that the district court\u2019s obligation to hear all arguments is reinforced when motions to suppress are concerned because such motions are \u201cnot one of the pretrial matters that may be reviewed by the district court merely for clear error or plain error\u201d).<\/p>\n
Given the law in this circuit, the government’s argument that I should not consider the defendant’s new arguments is well-taken\u2013though it should be noted that the government cites no cases that apply the Eighth Circuit’s rule to new arguments offered in support of a motion to suppress. I shall bypass this issue, however, because I find that I can readily dispose of the defendant’s new arguments on their merits.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading