Specific objection to 4A USMJ’s R&R required or waived

“Mr. Stewart did not object to the Recommended Disposition regarding whether the inevitable discovery doctrine would have led to the discovery of his felon status and unlawful possession of a weapon. When no objections are made this Court is not required to ‘review … a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard.’ See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151 (1985). Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record and agrees with the Recommended Disposition that the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule would permit entry of evidence of Mr. Stewart’s possession of a firearm even if probable cause was not properly in existence at the time of the search of his vehicle.” United States, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184129 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 5, 2020).*

“There is no question here that Spradley failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s R&R. His filing cited none of the magistrate judge’s findings of fact, nor any of her legal conclusions. Instead, he asserted a generalized objection to the R&R and asked the district court to review the magistrate judge’s findings. Because he failed to specifically object in accordance with Rule 59(b), he waived his right to review.” United States v. Spradley, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 31574 (11th Cir. Oct. 5, 2020).*