United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Norfolk Division
REBECCA BEACH SMITH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the court on the Defendant's
Objections to the Report and Recommendation
("R&R") filed by the United States Magistrate
Judge on the Defendant's "First Motion to Suppress
on Superseding Indictment" ("Motion"). The
Defendant filed his Motion on September 23, 2018. ECF No. 28.
The United States filed a Response on September 25, 2018, ECF
No. 29, and the Defendant filed a Reply on September 25,
2018, ECF No. 30. On September 26, 2018, this court referred
the Motion to United States Magistrate Judge Douglas E.
Miller, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 59(b), to
conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to
submit to the undersigned district judge proposed findings of
fact and recommendations for disposition of the Motion. ECF
Magistrate Judge held an evidentiary hearing on the
Defendant's Motion on October 24, 2018. ECF No. 43. A
transcript of the hearing was subsequently filed on October
29, 2018. Id. The R&R on the Defendant's
Motion was filed on November 9, 2018. ECF No. 48. In the
R&R, the parties were advised of their right to file
written objections to the findings and recommendations made
by the Magistrate Judge. Id. at 15-16. On December
21, 2018, the Defendant filed Objections to the R&R. ECF
No. 61. On January 4, 2019, the United States
filed a Response to the Defendant's Objections. ECF No.
January 8, 2019, the court determined that it would hold in
abeyance its consideration of the Defendant's Objections
to the R&R, pending the outcome of a competency
evaluation of the Defendant ordered on January 7, 2019. ECF
No. 73. On May 14, 2019, the court determined that the
Defendant is competent to stand trial, as he is capable of
understanding the nature and consequences of the proceedings
against him, and is able to assist properly in his defense.
ECF No. 85. Accordingly, the court will proceed to consider
the Defendant's Objections.
Motion, the Defendant argues that evidence obtained by police
officers during a traffic stop of the Defendant and his
companion must be suppressed because the officers
impermissibly expanded the scope of the traffic stop,
violating the Defendant's Fourth Amendment right to be
free from unreasonable seizure. ECF No. 28. The R&R
recommends that the Defendant's Motion be denied because
the facts and circumstances of the Defendant's traffic
stop created sufficient reasonable suspicion to warrant the
length of the Defendant's detention. ECF No. 48. The
Defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge's credibility
determination of Officer Miller, one of the police officers
who conducted the Defendant's traffic stop. ECF No. 61 at
1. The Defendant further objects to the Magistrate
Judge's legal conclusion that the facts and circumstances
of the Defendant's traffic stop justified the length of
the Defendant's detention. Id. at 2.
to Rule 59(b) (3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,
the court, having reviewed the record in its entirety, shall
make a de novo determination of those portions of
the R&R to which the Defendant has specifically objected.
Id. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the recommendation of the magistrate judge,
or recommit the matter to him with instructions. Id.
Where a party objects to a magistrate judge's credibility
determinations, the district court must conduct a de
novo credibility determination, but the court need not
"rehear the contested testimony" in order to make
its credibility determination. United States v.
Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 674 (1980). Rather, the district
court may consider the record developed by the Magistrate
Judge to make a de novo determination on the
credibility of witnesses. Id. at 676-77.
court, having examined the Objections to the Magistrate
Judge's R&R, having reviewed the record of the
proceedings before the Magistrate Judge, and having made de
novo findings with respect thereto,
OVERRULES the Defendant's Objections,
and hereby ADOPTS and APPROVES IN
FULL the credibility determinations, findings of
fact, recommendations, and legal conclusions, as set forth in
the R&R of the United States Magistrate Judge filed on
November 9, 2018. Accordingly, the Defendant's
"First Motion to Suppress on Superseding
Indictment," ECF No. 28, is DENIED.
Clerk is DIRECTED to forward a copy of this
Order to the Defendant's counsel and the Assistant United
IS SO ORDERED.
 The Defendant's Motion was filed
through his first attorney, Assistant Federal Public Defender
Andrew Grindrod. See ECF No. 28. Mr. Grindrod also
represented the Defendant during the evidentiary hearing
before the Magistrate Judge on October 24, 2018. See
ECF No. 43. Subsequent to the R&R being filed, Mr.
Grindrod moved to withdraw from further representation of the
Defendant on November 20, 2018. ECF No. 51. That same day,
Mr. Grindrod, on behalf of the Defendant, moved for an
extension of time to file Objections to the R&R, ECF No.
52, which motion the court granted on November 26, 2018, ECF
No. 54. On December 4, 2018, the court granted Mr.
Grindrod's Motion to withdraw from further representation
of the Defendant, ECF No. 55, and that same day appointed Mr.
Lawrence Woodward to represent the Defendant, ECF No. 57. On
December 12, 2018, Mr. Woodward moved for an additional
extension of time to file Objections to the R&R so that
he would have ...