You're viewing Docket Item 49 from the case USA v. Hansen. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

CENTRAL DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

No. CR13-3010-MWB

vs.

RYAN GENE HANSEN,

Defendant.

ORDER CONCERNING

MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION REGARDING

DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA

____________________

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

On March 27, 2013, an Indictment was returned against defendant Ryan Gene

Hansen, charging him with conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of a substance or

mixture containing methamphetamine which contained 50 grams or more of pure

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A) and 846, and

possessing with intent to distribute a substance or mixture containing methamphetamine

which contained 5 grams or more of pure methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B). On September 6, 2013, defendant appeared before United

States Magistrate Judge Leonard T. Strand and entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the

Indictment. On this same date, Judge Strand filed a Report and Recommendation in which

he recommends that defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. No objections to Judge Strand’s
Report and Recommendation were filed.1 The court, therefore, undertakes the necessary
review of Judge Strand’s recommendation to accept defendant’s plea in this case.

1The parties have waived the fourteen day period in which to file objections to

Judge Strand’s Report and Recommendation.

II. ANALYSIS

The court reviews the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation pursuant to

the statutory standards found in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1):

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) (2006); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (stating identical requirements);

N.D. IA. L.R. 72, 72.1 (allowing the referral of dispositive matters to a magistrate judge

but not articulating any standards to review the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation). While examining these statutory standards, the United States Supreme

Court explained:

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 standard.

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985). Thus, a district court may review de novo any

issue in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation at any time. Id. If a party files

an objection to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, however, the district

court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). In the absence of an objection, the district court is not required “to give any

more consideration to the magistrate’s report than the court considers appropriate.”

Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150.

2

In this case, no objections have been filed. As a result, the court has reviewed the

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation under a clearly erroneous standard of

review. See Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting when no

objections are filed and the time for filing objections has expired, “[the district court judge]

would only have to review the findings of the magistrate judge for clear error”); Taylor

v. Farrier, 910 F.2d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1990) (noting the advisory committee’s note to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) indicates “when no timely objection is filed the court need only

satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record”). After conducting its

review, the court is not “‘left with [a] definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been

committed,’” and finds no reason to reject or modify the magistrate judge’s

recommendation. 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)). Therefore, the

court accepts Judge Strand’s Report and Recommendation and accepts defendant’s plea of

guilty in this case to Count 1 of the Indictment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 6th day of September, 2013.

__________________________________
MARK W. BENNETT
U. S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

3