United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division
R. READE, JUDGE.
matter before the court is United States Magistrate Judge
Kelly K.E. Mahoney's Report and Recommendation (docket
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
October 16, 2017, the government filed a “Petition to
Enforce Internal Revenue Service Summons”
(“Petition”) (docket no. 1). On October 19, 2017,
the court referred this case to Judge Mahoney. See
October 19, 2017 Order (docket no. 2). On November 28, 2017,
Judge Mahoney held a hearing on the Motion for Order of
Compliance (docket no. 5). See November 28, 2017
Minute Entry (docket no. 7). Respondent failed to appear.
Id.; see also October 26, 2017 Return of
Service (docket no. 4). Judge Mahoney entered an order
directing Respondent to comply with the IRS summons and
provided that, if Respondent failed to comply, he must appear
for a show cause hearing. See November 28, 2017
Order (docket no. 8).
January 24, 2018, the government filed a Motion for Order and
Status Report (docket no. 10), informing the court that
“[R]espondent failed to comply with the summons or make
any known effort to contact the IRS or the United States
Attorney's Office.” Motion for Order and Status
Report at 1-2. The government requested that the court
“enter an order (1) finding [R]espondent in civil
contempt[;] (2) directing [R]espondent to comply with the IRS
summons[;] (3) imposing a monetary fine of $25 [per] day,
payable to the [C]lerk of [C]ourt, for any continued failure
to comply with the IRS summons[;] and (4) setting a status
hearing for the purpose of . . . considering the imposition
of additional sanctions.” Id. at 2. On January
30, 2018, Judge Mahoney held a show cause hearing.
See January 30, 2018 Minute Entry (docket no. 12).
Respondent again failed to appear. Id.; see
also December 2, 2017 Return of Service (docket no. 9).
On February 1, 2018, Judge Mahoney issued the Report and
Recommendation, which recommends that the court “enter
an order: (1) compelling [Respondent] to comply with the IRS
summons within [thirty] days from the date he is served the
court's order; (2) ordering [Respondent] [to] pay the
costs for [the government] to maintain this action, including
costs of service; and (3) ordering [the government] to file a
status report no later than [sixty] days from the date of the
court's order, indicating whether [Respondent] complied
with the subpoena.” Report and Recommendation at 3.
Judge Mahoney further recommended that, “should
[Respondent] fail to comply with the order compelling
compliance with the IRS summons, that the court order [him]
to show cause why he should not be held in contempt and be
subjected to imposition of fines and/or incarceration.”
Id. The Report and Recommendation states that
“[o]bjections to th[e] Report and Recommendation must
be filed within fourteen days of service.” Id.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
to statute, this court's standard of review for a
magistrate judge's report and recommendation is as
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.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Similarly, Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72(b) provides for de novo review of a magistrate
judge's report and recommendation on dispositive motions
when objections are made. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). The Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals has held that it is reversible error
for a district court to fail to conduct a de novo review of a
magistrate judge's report and recommendation when such
review is required. See, e.g., United States v.
Lothridge, 324 F.3d 599, 600 (8th Cir. 2003). The court
reviews the unobjected-to portions of the proposed findings
or recommendation for “plain error.” See
United States v. Rodriguez, 484 F.3d 1006, 1010-11 (8th
Cir. 2007) (noting that, where a party does not file
objections to a magistrate's report and recommendation,
the party waives the right to de novo review and the court
will review the decision for plain error).
case, no objections have been filed and the time to object to
the Report and Recommendation has passed. It appears to the
court upon review of Judge Mahoney's findings and
conclusions that there is no ground to reject or modify them.
Therefore, the court ACCEPTS Judge
Mahoney's Report and Recommendation of February 1, 2018.
light of the foregoing IT ...