the portion of the R & R relating to statements he made during an interviewed conducted by Detective Alexander after his arrest. (Doc. 46.) The Government responded to defendant’s objections. (Doc. 50.) Having reviewed Defendant’s objections, the Government’s response and the entire record, the Court is now prepared to rule on this matter. For the reasons set forth below, the defendant’s objections are OVERRULED, and the Court hereby ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Limbert’s R & R. II. ANALYSIS When a party timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation on a motion to suppress, a district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection is made. See, United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (providing that a
holding that a magistrate judges ruling on dispositive motions such as those for the suppression of evidence must be reviewed de novo by the district court recognizing ruling on motion for judgment of acquittal is reviewed de novo on appeal holding in the criminal context that a district courts obligation to make a de novo determination with respect to the portions of a magistrate judges report and recommendation to which objections are made did not require a de novo hearing holding that a district court could properly designate the magistrate to make a nonbinding recommendation on nondispositive motions under section 636b3 but such matters are reviewed de novo holding that confrontation clause claims are reviewed de novo