1:10-cr-20262-TLL-CEB Doc # 36 Filed 03/16/11 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 145 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, CASE NO: 10-20262-01 v. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER BOBBY JASON JOHNSON, Defendant. / MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY I. REPORT AND FINDINGS This case was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B) and 636(b)(3) for purposes of receiving, on consent of the parties, Defendant’s offer of a plea of guilty. Defendant, along with counsel, appeared before me on . In open court, I examined Defendant under oath, confirmed Defendant’s consent, and then advised and questioned Defendant regarding each of the inquiries prescribed by Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Based upon Defendant’s answers and demeanor, I HEREBY FIND: (1) that Defendant is competent to tender a plea; (2) that Defendant’s plea was knowingly, intelligently made; and (3) that the offense to which Defendant pleaded guilty is supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of the offense. Therefore, I have ordered the preparation of a presentence investigation report.  1:10-cr-20262-TLL-CEB Doc # 36 Filed 03/16/11 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 146 II. RECOMMENDATION For the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that, subject to the Court’s consideration of the plea agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Defendant’s plea be accepted, Defendant be adjudged guilty, and the Court impose sentence. III. REVIEW Pursuant to Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. A party may respond to another party’s objections within 14 days after being served with a copy.” FED.R.CIV.P. 72(B)(2). See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140" date_filed="1986-01-27" court="SCOTUS" case_name="Thomas v. Arn">474 U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed. 2d 435" date_filed="1986-01-27" court="SCOTUS" case_name="Thomas v. Arn">88 L. Ed.2d 435 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505" date_filed="1991-05-06" court="6th Cir." case_name="Eloise HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee">932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v Walters, 638 F.2d 947" date_filed="1981-01-20" court="6th Cir." case_name="United States v. W. R. Walters, United States of America v. Two Hundred Sixty-Two Firearms">638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). The parties are advised that making some objections, but failing to raise others, will not preserve all the objections a party may have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370" date_filed="1987-09-29" court="6th Cir." case_name="Ernest Smith Sam Eliowitz Albert Rosen Robert Sheldon Jan Sklenar Joseph Soltesz Cecelia Stoll v. Detroit Federation of Teachers">829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge.  C s/ harles`EB inder CHARLES E. BINDER Dated: March 16, 2011 United States Magistrate Judge 2  1:10-cr-20262-TLL-CEB Doc # 36 Filed 03/16/11 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 147 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this Report and Recommendation was electronically filed this date, electronically served on Roy Kranz and Steve Jacobs, and served on District Judge Ludington in the traditional manner. Date: March 16, 2011 By s/Jean L. Broucek Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Binder 3