United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division
ORDER REGARDING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING DEFENDANT'S GUILTY
W. BENNETT, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
24, 2018, defendant Ronald Hegel was charged in a
single-count indictment with knowingly making a false
statement and report and willfully overvaluing property and
security for the purpose of influencing the action of State
Bank of Spencer, Iowa, in connection with a loan, in that he
submitted an inventory that contained false entries, when in
truth and in fact, he knew that he had sold inventory out of
trust and not all of the entries were collateral for such
loan, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014. Hegel
initially pleaded not guilty to the charges, but on October
24, 2018, he entered a notice of his intention to plead
guilty in this case.
November 19, 2018, Hegel appeared before United States
Magistrate Judge Kelly K.E. Mahoney and entered a plea of
guilty to the single count of the Indictment, pursuant to a
plea agreement, a copy of which was entered into evidence. On
November 19, 2018, Judge Mahoney filed a Report And
Recommendation that Hegel's guilty plea to the single
count of the Indictment be accepted.
party filed objections to the Report And Recommendation by
the deadline of December 3, 2018. Consequently, I now
undertake the necessary review of Judge Mahoney's
recommendation to accept Hegel's guilty plea in this
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).