govinfo:USCOURTS-gand-1_25-cr-00520-1

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
ATLANTA DIVISION 
 
 
 
United States of America, 
 
v. 
 
Sharon Henderson, 
 
Defendant. 
 
_________________________________/ 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 Defendant Sharon Henderson filed a motion to dismiss the 
indictment on jurisdictional grou nds or, alternatively, for limited 
discovery in support of a prospective selective prosecution claim. (Dkt. 
21.) Magistrate Judge Cannon issu ed a report and recommendation, 
saying this Court should deny he r requests. (Dkt. 29.) Defendant 
Henderson filed no objections. 
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) requires distri ct courts to “make a de novo 
determination of those portions of [an R&R] to which objection is made.” 
Any such objection “must specifically identify the portions of the [R&R] 
to which objection is made and th e specific basis for objection.” 

 
2 
 
McCullars v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 825 F. App’x 685, 694 (11th Cir. 
2020)1; see United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009) 
(“[A] party that wishes to preserve its objection must clearly advise the 
district court and pinpoint the specif ic findings that the party disagrees 
with.”). “Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be 
considered by the district court.” Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 
(11th Cir. 1988). “It does not appear that Congress intended to require 
district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under 
a de novo or any other standard, wh en neither party objects to those 
findings.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). And, in most cases, 
“[a] party failing to object to [an R& R] waives the right to challenge on 
appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal 
conclusions.” McGriff v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 654 F. App’x 469, 472 
(11th Cir. 2016). In any event, the Co urt may accept, reject, or modify 
the recommendation in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 
 
1 The Court recognizes McCullars is unpublished and not binding. The 
Court cites it and other unpublished ca ses as instructive, nonetheless. 
See Searcy v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. , 902 F.3d 1342, 1355 n.5 (11th 
Cir. 2018) (“Unpublished cases do no t constitute binding authority and 
may be relied on only to the extent they are persuasive.”). 

 
3 
 
The Court finds no error—clear or otherwise—in the Magistrate 
Judge’s determination that the federa l criminal charges included in the 
indictment invoke the Court’s subj ect matter jurisdiction and that 
Defendant Henderson has not made the requisite showing to obtain 
discovery or a hearing as to selective prosecution. The Court ADOPTS 
the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 29) and 
DENIES Defendant Henderson’s Motion to Dismiss and request for 
discovery (Dkt 21). 
SO ORDERED this 6th day of May, 2026. 
 
 
 
1 (1 1 (1 
MICH" KEL L. BROWN 

Passage view · GavelSight