government’s right to prosecute the case and each defendant’s constitutional rights. A primary example of this problem is best seen by referring to the court’s dismissal of the first indictment on October 19,1998. Therefore, the magistrate was correct in deciding that the time limits applicable under the Speedy Trial Act must give way to the interests of justice in this case pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A), and I will adopt this portion of the recommendation and order as well. III. CONCLUSION For the aforementioned reasons, the court rules accordingly on the defendants’ objections. The court will continue its established practice of adopting without review any recommendation to which no objection is made. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the motions
recognizing that subject matter jurisdiction can be questioned at any time and with respect to any claim holding that failure to file a postjudgment motion on alleged error of law relating to ruling on exception to the statute of frauds that was committed for first time in the judgment waives any objection to that ruling and that in the absence of any other formal objection the issue is not preserved for appellate review holding that section 636b1c  does not require any review at all  of any issue that is not the subject of an objection holding that an issue was not preserved for appellate review because appellants trial objection does not comport with the issue he raised on appeal holding that parties waived any choice of law objection by not raising an objection