United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division
Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge
matter is before me on a Report and Recommendation (R&R)
in which the Honorable Kelly K.E. Mahoney, United States
Magistrate Judge, recommends that I deny defendant's
motion (Doc. No. 95) to dismiss indictment. See Doc.
April 26, 2016, the grand jury returned an indictment (Doc.
No. 2) against defendant Johnathan Dewayne Mitchell charging
him with one count of interference with commerce by robbery
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951. The indictment alleges
that at all times material to the indictment, Catherine
“Cathy” Stickley and Century Cab were
“engaged in providing taxi service, in interstate and
foreign commerce and an industry which affects interstate and
foreign commerce.” Doc. No. 2. It further alleges that
Mitchell unlawfully obstructed, delayed and affected, or
attempted to obstruct, delay and affect commerce by robbery
in that he unlawfully took and obtained Stickley's
belongings including cash, a purse and a money bag by means
of actual or threatened force, violence, and fear of injury
to her person. Id.
in this case were delayed by a series of competency hearings.
Most recently, Judge Mahoney found Mitchell incompetent to
stand trial on February 6, 2018, and ordered a period of
treatment not to exceed 120 days to determine whether
Mitchell could be restored to competency. Doc. No. 90. On
July 26, 2018, Judge Mahoney ordered an additional period of
treatment not to extend 120 days. Doc. No. 99.
filed the present motion to dismiss indictment (Doc. No. 95)
on July 6, 2018. The Government filed its resistance (Doc.
No. 96) on July 13, 2018. Judge Mahoney issued her Report and
Recommendation (Doc. No. 100) on August 6, 2018, and Mitchell
filed an objection (Doc. No. 101) on August 7, 2018.
district judge must review a magistrate judge's R&R
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 (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
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
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).
argues the indictment must be dismissed because his
prosecution for interference with commerce by robbery in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, following acquittal of
the charges of first degree murder, first degree robbery, and
their lesser-included offenses in state court, violates the
double jeopardy clause. Mitchell urges that ...