Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_19-cr-00034/USCOURTS-akd-3_19-cr-00034-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kagan Paul Cusick
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

KAGAN PAUL CUSICK, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 3:19-cr-00034-SLG-DMS 

ORDER RE FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO SUPRESS 

Before the Court at Docket 36 is Defendant’s Motion to Suppress. The 

Government responded in opposition at Docket 39. The motion was referred to 

the Honorable Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Smith. At Docket 58, Judge Smith 

issued her Initial Report and Recommendation, in which she recommended that 

the motion be denied. Defendant filed objections to the Initial Report and 

Recommendation at Docket 59. Judge Smith issued her Final Report and 

Recommendation at Docket 60, in which she recommended that the motion be 

denied. No further objections to the Final Report and Recommendation were filed. 

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 

1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Case 3:19-cr-00034-SLG-DMS Document 61 Filed 03/11/20 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 3:19-cr-00034-SLG-DMS, USA v. Cusick

Order re Final Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion to Suppress

Page 2 of 2 

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 [28U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and 

recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”3 

The magistrate judge recommended that the Court deny the Motion to 

Supress. 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 at Docket 36 

is DENIED. 

DATED this 10th day of March, 2020 at Anchorage, Alaska. 

/s/ Sharon L. Gleason 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

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-00034-SLG-DMS Document 61 Filed 03/11/20 Page 2 of 2