United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER: (1) OVERRULING DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION [ECF
No. 915]; (2) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No.
910]; AND (3) DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
INDICTMENT [ECF No. 885]
Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge.
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
Marco Antonio Paredes-Machado
(“Paredes-Machado”), a Mexican national
extradited to the United States, is charged with Conspiracy
to Distribute and Conspiracy to Import More Than 1, 000
Kilograms of Marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), 846, 952, 960(a)(1), and 963.
November 15, 2018, Paredes-Machado filed a motion to dismiss
the indictment. He argues dismissal is appropriate due to
“outrageous government conduct” that took place
after his arrest in Mexico. [ECF No. 885]. Paredes-Machado
alleges that the Mexican officers who arrested him tortured
him and his wife before turning him over to United States
undisputed that the United States was involved in the
investigation leading up to Paredes-Machado's arrest, and
that the underlying arrest was pursuant to a U.S. warrant.
Paredes-Machado says the Mexican officers were essentially
“agents” of the United States because they worked
in a unit that received training, funding, and at least some
oversight by the U.S. He says the United States knew or
should have known that Mexican officers would torture him
when it asked Mexico to apprehend him. Paredes-Machado says
this makes the government's conduct shocking to the
conscience and in violation of the Due Process Clause of the
Court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge David R. Grand
for a report and recommendation (“R&R”).
Judge Grand held a hearing on February 4, 2019.
March 28, 2019, Magistrate Judge Grand issued an R&R.
[ECF No. 910]. He recommends DENYING the motion, finding
that, although Paredes-Machado's allegations “raise
serious concerns about his treatment by the Mexican arresting
officers, some of whom may have received training and funding
from the United States government, dismissal of the criminal
charges against him is not an available remedy for any such
abuse.” The magistrate judge relies on well-established
objections are fully briefed.
Paredes-Machado acknowledges, the R&R is based on a
purely legal issue - i.e., whether, accepting as true his
allegations, the outrageous government conduct defense is
available to him. Except for one minor objection,
Paredes-Machado accepts the R&R's recitation of
facts. Accordingly, except for the one fact objected to -
which is discussed below - the Court accepts the facts set
forth in the R&R and incorporates them by reference.
Court reviewed the parties' briefs and the record. It
makes a de novo determination of the parts of the
R&R to which Paredes-Machado objects, and finds that
Paredes-Machado is not entitled to dismissal of the
the Court OVERRULES Paredes-Machado's
Objection, ADOPTS the R&R, and
DENIES Paredes-Machado's motion to
dismiss the indictment.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
party properly objects to portions of a magistrate
judge's report and recommendation, the Court reviews such
portions de novo. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). However, only specific objections that
pinpoint a source of error in the report are entitled to
de novo review. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d
636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986). Parties may not raise new arguments
in their objections or issues that were not presented to the
magistrate judge. Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d
895, 902 (6th Cir. 2000). See also United States v.
Waters, 158 F.3d 933, 936 (6th Cir. 1998) (citing
Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 1426-27 (10th Cir.
1996) (“issues raised for the first time in objections
to magistrate judge's report and recommendation are