Filed: Jan. 18, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 18, 2018
Summary: ORDER REGARDING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING DEFENDANT'S GUILTY PLEA MARK W. BENNETT , District Judge . I. BACKGROUND On November 30, 2017, an Indictment was returned against defendant Daniel Lester Frye charging him with one count of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture which contained 5 grams or more actual (pure) methamphetamine. On January 17, 2018, defendant Frye appeared before United States Magistrate Judge Ke
Summary: ORDER REGARDING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING DEFENDANT'S GUILTY PLEA MARK W. BENNETT , District Judge . I. BACKGROUND On November 30, 2017, an Indictment was returned against defendant Daniel Lester Frye charging him with one count of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture which contained 5 grams or more actual (pure) methamphetamine. On January 17, 2018, defendant Frye appeared before United States Magistrate Judge Kel..
More
ORDER REGARDING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING DEFENDANT'S GUILTY PLEA
MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge.
I. BACKGROUND
On November 30, 2017, an Indictment was returned against defendant Daniel Lester Frye charging him with one count of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture which contained 5 grams or more actual (pure) methamphetamine. On January 17, 2018, defendant Frye appeared before United States Magistrate Judge Kelly K.E. Mahoney and entered a plea of guilty to the sole count of the Indictment. After the hearing, Judge Mahoney filed a Report and Recommendation that defendant's guilty plea be accepted. On January 17, 2018, the prosecution and defendant Frye filed a Waiver Of Objections To Report And Recommendation Concerning Guilty Plea. Consequently, I now undertake the necessary review of Judge Mahoney's recommendation to accept defendant's guilty plea in this case.
II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS
A district judge must review a magistrate judge's Report And Recommendation 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 a Report and Recommendation, the district judge must undertake a de novo review of that portion.
On the other hand, any portion of a Report and Recommendation 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)).
A district judge may elect to review a Report and Recommendation under a more-exacting standard even if no objections are filed:
Any party who 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 the parties have waived objections to the Report And Recommendation, I have reviewed the Report And Recommendation 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 Report And Recommendation without modification and accept defendant's plea of guilty in this case as to the sole count of the Indictment.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
