United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division
ORDER REGARDING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
W. BENNETT, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
January 25, 2018, an Indictment charged defendant Manuela
Cibrian-Lopez, in Count 1, with possession
with intent to distribute 80 kilograms or more of marijuana,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
841(b)(1)(C), and, in Count 2, with
possession of a firearm during and in relation to, and in
furtherance of, a drug-trafficking crime, that is, possession
with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A) and 924(a)(2). On March 9,
2018, Cibrian-Lopez filed a Motion To Suppress her
post-Miranda statements to law enforcement agents,
because those statements were not made knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily, so as to constitute a waiver
of her Fifth Amendment rights, as required by Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). On April 27, 2018, United
States Magistrate Judge Kelly K.E. Mahoney held an
evidentiary hearing on Cibrian-Lopez's Motion To
Suppress. On May 25, 2018, Judge Mahoney filed her Report And
Recommendation that Cibrian-Lopez's Motion To Suppress be
denied. Her Report And Recommendation stated that objections
to the Report And Recommendation were due within fourteen
days of the service of her Report And Recommendation, that
is, on or before June 8, 2018. Her Report And Recommendation
also made clear that failure to object to the Report and
Recommendation waives the right to de novo review by
the district court of any portion of the Report and
Recommendation, as well as the right to appeal from the
findings of fact contained therein. No. party filed timely
objections to the Report And Recommendation. Therefore, I now
undertake the necessary review of Judge Mahoney's
recommendation that Cibrian-Lopez's Motion To Suppress be
district judge must review a magistrate judge's Report
And Recommendation in a criminal case under the following
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.
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)).
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).
the parties have filed no timely objections to the Report And
Recommendation, I have reviewed the Report And Recommendation
for clear error. Grinder, 73 F.3d at 795; 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b).
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 (docket
no. 73) and deny defendant
Cibrian-Lopez's Motion To Suppress (docket no. 25).