USA v. Stewart

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v. 	No. 4:23-cr-593-MAL
STURGEON STEWART,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendant Sturgeon Stewart is charged with robbery, murder, and being a
felon in possession. 	Doc. 1. Through counsel,1 he has filed several pretrial motions
that are now pending before the Court: (1) Motion to Suppress Evidence and Request
for Franks Hearing, Doc. 68; (2) Motion to Suppress DNA Evidence, Doc. 157; (3)
Motion to Suppress Statements, Doc. 63; (4) Motion for Disclosure Pursuant to Rules
404(b) and 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Doc. 64; (5) Motion for Early
Disclosure of Jencks Act Materials, Doc. 69; (6) Motion to Dismiss for Undue Delay,
Doc. 66; (7) Motion to Dismiss Count III, Doc. 67; (7) Motion to Dismiss Indictment
on the Grounds of Vindictive Prosecution, Doc. 119.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), these motions were referred to the magistrate judge2
who issued reports and recommendations recommending that each motion be denied.
Docs. 140, 172. 	Stewart filed objections to the magistrate judge’s reports and
recommendations. Docs. 143, 176. Because Stewart objects, the Court “shall make a
1 Stewart himself has filed several pro se motions (and correspondence asking for relief) with
the Court despite being represented by well qualified counsel. The Court will not entertain
these motions and will direct them to be stricken from the record. 	See United States v.
Maxwell, 778 F.3d 719, 738 (8th Cir. 2015) (“There is no constitutional or statutory right to
simultaneously proceed pro se and with benefit of counsel.”) (quotation omitted); United
States v. Pate, 754 F.3d 550, 553 (8th Cir. 2014) (“a district court has no obligation to
entertain pro se motions filed by a represented party”) (cleaned up).
2 United States Magistrate Judge Joseph S. Dueker.
Case: 4:23-cr-00593-MAL Doc. #: 185 Filed: 03/19/26 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed finding or
recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
After de novo review, including careful consideration of all briefing and a
thorough review of the evidentiary hearing held before the magistrate judge, the
Court finds that the magistrate judge’s conclusions are correct. Stewart’s objections
are not persuasive. 	The Court DENIES all of Stewart’s pending motions and
accepts, 	adopts, 	and 	incorporates 	the 	magistrate 	judge’s 	report 	and
recommendation, Doc. 140, and the magistrate judge’s supplemental report and
recommendation, Doc. 172, in full.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Stewart’s Motion to Suppress Evidence and
Request for Franks Hearing, Doc. 68; Motion to Suppress DNA Evidence, Doc. 157;
Motion to Suppress Statements, Doc. 63; Motion for Disclosure Pursuant to Rules
404(b) and 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Doc. 64; Motion for Early Disclosure
of Jencks Act Materials, Doc. 69; Motion to Dismiss for Undue Delay, Doc. 66; Motion
to Dismiss Count III, Doc. 67; and Motion to Dismiss Indictment on the Grounds of
Vindictive Prosecution, Doc. 119; are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Stewart’s pro se motions (including his
correspondence requesting relief) shall be stricken from the record. 	The Clerk of
Court is directed to strike the following docket entries from the record: Docs. 29, 99,
102, 105, 110, 146, 142, 149, 150, 153, 154, 158, 159, 161, 162, 165, 168, 169, 174, 175,
178, 180, 181, 182, 183, and 184.
SO ORDERED,
This 18th day of March, 2026.
___________________________________
MARIA A. LANAHAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:23-cr-00593-MAL Doc. #: 185 Filed: 03/19/26 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>