USA v. Myrick

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:22-cr-00175-JLS-MJR Document141 Filed 06/27/25 Pagelof3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Vv.

22-CR-175 (JLS) (MJR)

YUSEF E. MALIK MYRICK, et al.,

Defendants.

DECISION AND ORDER

Defendant Yusef E. Malik Myrick is charged in an indictment with various
child pornography crimes, as well as cyberstalking, obstruction of justice, and
witness tampering. See Dkt. 1. The case has been referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer to hear and determine, and report and
recommend on, all pre-trial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B).
See Dkt. 21.

On March 8, 2024, Myrick filed an omnibus motion to suppress evidence and
for various other pretrial items. See Dkt. 63.1 The Government responded in
opposition. Dkt. 65-67. Myrick replied. Dkt. 71. Judge Roemer heard oral
argument on April 24, 2024. Dkt. 74. Following oral argument, Judge Roemer

scheduled an evidentiary hearing and requested that the Government file a

1 Judge Roemer resolved Myrick’s omnibus discovery demands. See Dkt. 132.

Case 1:22-cr-00175-JLS-MJR Document141 Filed 06/27/25 Page2of3

supplemental brief. Id. The Government filed its brief (Dkt. 78, 81), and Myrick
responded. Dkt. 91.

Judge Roemer then held an evidentiary hearing on May 21, 2024. Dkt. 92.
The parties filed post-hearing briefs. Dkt. 123-24. And they filed reply briefs. Dkt.
125-26. Judge Roemer then heard oral argument. Dkt. 129.

On May 1, 2025, Judge Roemer issued a Report, Recommendation and Order
(“R&R”), recommending that this Court deny Myrick’s suppression motions. See
Dkt. 132, at 33. Myrick objected. Dkt. 138. The Government opposed the
objections. Dkt. 140. Myrick did not reply.

A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations
of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). A district
court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s
recommendation to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim.

P. 59(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 nor Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 59
requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to
which no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).

This Court has carefully reviewed the R&R, the objections briefing, and the

relevant record. Based on that de novo review, the Court accepts and adopts

Judge Roemer’s recommendations.

Case 1:22-cr-00175-JLS-MJR Document141 Filed 06/27/25 Page3of3

For the reasons above and in the R&R, Myrick’s motions to suppress

evidence, see Dkt. 63, are DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2025
Buffalo, New York

/

A
JOHN. SINATRA, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE