Filed: Nov. 17, 2016
Latest Update: Nov. 17, 2016
Summary: ORDER LEONARD T. STRAND , District Judge . This matter is before me on a Report and Recommendation (R&R) in which the Honorable C.J. Williams, United States Magistrate Judge, recommends that I accept defendant's plea of guilty. See Doc. No. 37. I. BACKGROUND On May 26, 2016, defendant was charged in a three-count indictment (Doc. No. 2). Count 1 charges defendant with conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C) and 846. Count 2 c
Summary: ORDER LEONARD T. STRAND , District Judge . This matter is before me on a Report and Recommendation (R&R) in which the Honorable C.J. Williams, United States Magistrate Judge, recommends that I accept defendant's plea of guilty. See Doc. No. 37. I. BACKGROUND On May 26, 2016, defendant was charged in a three-count indictment (Doc. No. 2). Count 1 charges defendant with conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C) and 846. Count 2 ch..
More
ORDER
LEONARD T. STRAND, District Judge.
This matter is before me on a Report and Recommendation (R&R) in which the Honorable C.J. Williams, United States Magistrate Judge, recommends that I accept defendant's plea of guilty. See Doc. No. 37.
I. BACKGROUND
On May 26, 2016, defendant was charged in a three-count indictment (Doc. No. 2). Count 1 charges defendant with conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C) and 846. Count 2 charges defendant with possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C). Count 3 charges defendant with importation of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952. On October 31, 2016, defendant appeared before Judge Williams and changed his plea to guilty as to Count 1. Judge Williams filed the R&R on the following date. Neither party has filed written objections to the R&R. Any objections are now deemed waived. See N.D. Ia. L.Cr. R. 59.
II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS
A district judge must review a magistrate judge's R&R in a criminal case under the following standards:
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b). Thus, when a party objects to any portion of an R&R, the district judge must undertake a de novo review of that portion.
Any portions of an R&R to which no objections have been made must be reviewed under at least a "clearly erroneous" standard. See, e.g., Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting that when no objections are filed "[the district court judge] would only have to review the findings of the magistrate judge for clear error"). As the Supreme Court has explained, "[a] finding is `clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1985) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). However, a district judge may elect to review an R&R under a more-exacting standard even if no objections are filed:
Any party that desires plenary consideration by the Article III judge of any issue need only ask. Moreover, 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 v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).
III. DISCUSSION
Because neither party objects to the R&R, I have reviewed it for clear error. Based on that review, I am not "left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Anderson, 470 U.S. at 573-74. As such, I hereby accept the R&R without modification and accept defendant's plea of guilty in this case to Count 1 of the indictment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
