Catherine M. Salinas

“the Court ADOPTS the R&R [Doc. 121] as the Opinion and Order of the Court. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' First Particularized Motion to Suppress Evidence Relating to Search Warrants [Doc. 46, 11O], and Defendant Mesika's First Particularized Motion to Suppress Statements [Doc. 47] and First Amended Motion to Suppress Evidence [Doc. 61] are DENIED.”

“Defendants' First Particularized Motion to Suppress Evidence Relating to Search Warrants [Doc. 46, 11O] ... are DENIED.”

“Defendant's Motion to Compel Selective Prosecution Discovery (Doc. No. [30]); Motion to Dismiss the Indictment with Prejudice for Selective Prosecution (Doc. No. [22]); and Motion to Quash Count One as Fatally Duplicitous or to Require Forced Election (Doc. No. [17]) are hereby DENIED.”

“Motion to Dismiss the Indictment with Prejudice for Selective Prosecution (Doc. No. [22]); ... are hereby DENIED.”

“Motion to Quash Count One as Fatally Duplicitous or to Require Forced Election (Doc. No. [17]) are hereby DENIED.”

“the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Salinas's factual and legal conclusions were correct and that Fisher's objections [994] do not have any merit. ... The Court therefore adopts as its Order the R&R [990]. Fisher's motion [905] to stay forfeiture pending appeal is DENIED.”

“Judge Salinas conducted a frivolity review of the amended complaint and issued a Final Report and Recommendation (R&R) that the amended complaint be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Killion objected to the R&R, but undersigned overruled Killion's objections and adopted the R&R, and the case was dismissed without prejudice.”

Sua sponte (after granting IFP) Salinas recommended REMAND of a removed Georgia dispossessory action for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction (no federal question -- defenses/counterclaims don't confer it; no diversity -- no complete-diversity or >$75k showing). Duffey adopted over the pro se defendant's objections and remanded. This remand did not resolve a party motion and illustrates her jurisdictional reasoning.

DJ William S. Duffey Jr. adoption order (ADOPTED AS MODIFIED, over the plaintiff's objections, de novo review) reciting Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas's Final R&R [12] on incarcerated pro se plaintiff's 28 U.S.C. 1915A/1983 amended complaint. R&R recommended dismissal without prejudice; DJ modified to dismiss the Gwinnett claim WITH prejudice (Heck-barred and time-barred) and the Smith State Prison claim WITHOUT prejudice (improper venue, refile in S.D. Ga.). Plaintiff's three post-R&R motions (two motions to compel, one motion for leave to amend) were DENIED AS MOOT once the case was dismissed. This court-initiated prisoner/IFP screening dismissal had no party movant. Quote: Plaintiff's claims against the Municipal Corporation of Gwinnett are dismissed with prejudice, and his claims against Smith State Prison officials are dismissed without prejudice.; Plaintiff's Motions to Compel [15], [17], Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint [18], and Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages [22] are DENIED AS MOOT.; Plaintiff's Motions to Compel [15], [17], Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint [18], and Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages [22] are DENIED AS MOOT.

“For the reasons stated in the R&R, Defendant's Motion to Suppress (Doc. No. [26]) is DENIED.”

Self-signed Order and Final Report and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas on pro se IFP mandamus petition; frivolity review under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Reference to the magistrate judge was directed to be terminated upon adoption. The available record does not establish whether the district judge later adopted the recommendation. This court-initiated prisoner/IFP screening dismissal had no party movant. Quote: the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this action should be DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

“Asante's Objections are OVERRULED, (B) the R&R is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Order of the Court, as modified herein, (C) this case is SUMMARILY DISMISSED as untimely filed, (D) a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED”

Self-signed Final Report and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas on pro se Georgia state inmate's 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas petition; reference to magistrate judge directed to be terminated. The available record does not establish whether the district judge later adopted the recommendation. This court-initiated screening dismissal had no party movant. Quote: the undersigned RECOMMENDS that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because Mr. Roberts has not paid the $5 filing fee or demonstrated an inability to do so. Alternatively, ... this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because it is evident from the face of Mr. Roberts' Sec. 2254 petition that he has not exhausted all available state remedies

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Catherine Salinas's Final Report and Recommendation [20] is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED AND REMANDED.”

“Accordingly, I RECOMMEND that the two Motions to Dismiss as to Count Seven [Docs. 168, 270] be DENIED.”