MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RICHARD G. KOPF, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the court on Magistrate Judge Thalken's findings and recommendation. (Filing 33.) The magistrate recommends that Defendant Daniel T. Ray's motion to suppress (filing 21) be denied. (Filing 33 at CM/ECF p. 10.) Defendant has filed an objection to the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation. (Filing 44.) Plaintiff has filed a response to the objection. (Filing 47.) I have conducted a de novo review of the record, including Defendant's objection and Plaintiff's response to Defendant's objection.
Defendant objects to the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation because he believes the search of his gym bag was unlawful. (Filing 45 at CM/ECF p. 1.) However, the magistrate judge provided multiple reasons to support his conclusion that the search was permissible. (Filing 33 at CM/ECF p. 8-10.) Among these reasons, the magistrate judge concluded the officers could have reasonably believed they would find other evidence related to the offense of obstructing a police officer and carrying a concealed weapon. See United States v. Casteel , 717 F.3d 635, 646 (8th Cir. 2013) (finding reasonable suspicion existed to find ammunition or paperwork related to a firearms investigation inside the vehicle after firearms recovered).
In short, I find that inasmuch as the magistrate judge has fully, carefully, and correctly found the facts and applied the law, the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation should be adopted and Defendant's motion to suppress should be denied.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The magistrate judge's findings and recommendation (filing 33) is adopted.
2. Defendant Daniel T. Ray's motion to suppress (filing 21), and objection to the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation ...