ORDER

CINDY K. JORGENSON, District Judge.

On July 17, 2018, Magistrate Judge Bruce G. Macdonald issued a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") (Doc. 69) in which he recommended the Court deny the Motion to Dismiss Indictment [sic] Lack of Jurisdiction (Doc. 24), Motion for Production of Grand Jury Transcript (Doc. 25), and Motion to Dismiss (Commerce Clause) (Doc. 34) filed by Defendant Emilio Urena-Villa ("Urena-Villa"). The R & R notified the parties that they had fourteen days from the date of being served with the copy of the Report and Recommendation to serve and file any objections. No objections have been filed.

The standard of review that is applied to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation is dependent upon whether a party files objections — the Court need not review portions of a report to which a party does not object. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). However, the Court must "determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Nonetheless, "while the statute does not require the judge to review an issue de novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard." Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154.

The Court has reviewed and considered the pending motions and related documents.

Accordingly, after an independent review, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 69) is ADOPTED.

2. The Motion to Dismiss Indictment [sic] Lack of Jurisdiction (Doc. 24) is DENIED.

3. The Motion for Production of Grand Jury Transcript (Doc. 25) is DENIED.

4. The Motion to Dismiss (Commerce Clause) (Doc. 34) is DENIED.