United States v. Grotsky, 2:20-cr-00013

Defendant Linda M. Grotsky entered a Rule 11(c)(1)(A) plea agreement to one count charging possession with intent to distribute a substance containing fentanyl (21 U.S.C. § 841).
On February 18, 2020, Grotsky, with counsel, waived indictment, consented to plead before a Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3), and formally pleaded guilty to Count 1 of the Information.
The Magistrate Judge conducted the Rule 11 colloquy, observed Grotsky’s demeanor, and found her competent, sober, and understanding of the charge, rights, and consequences of the plea.
Grotsky acknowledged the factual basis for the charge, confirmed the plea agreement was the only promise made, and was advised the District Judge may accept or reject the plea agreement.
The Magistrate Judge concluded the plea was knowing and voluntary, recommended acceptance of the guilty plea, and deferred decision on the plea agreement to the District Judge pending a presentence investigation report.
The opinion notifies parties of procedures for a presentence report, deadlines for objections to the R&R, and warns that failure to object waives de novo review and appellate rights; the plea agreement contains a limited appellate-waiver provision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Voluntariness/competence of plea	Plea was knowing, voluntary, and competent after full Rule 11 colloquy	Grotsky affirmed plea and facts; raised no challenge	Magistrate found plea knowing, voluntary, and supported by factual basis; recommended acceptance
Consent to Magistrate Judge accepting plea	Consent under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(3) valid; magistrate may accept plea with defendant’s consent	Grotsky consented and waived objections	Magistrate properly accepted plea with defendant’s consent and issued R&R to District Judge
Waiver of indictment and advisement under Rule 7(b)	Waiver executed in open court after advisement	Grotsky waived indictment knowingly	Court found waiver valid and compliant with Rule 7(b)
Factual basis, plea agreement effects, and appellate waiver	Statement of facts accurate; plea agreement sole promises; District Judge may accept/reject; appellate rights limited by waiver	Grotsky acknowledged facts and agreement	Court concluded factual basis exists; recommended acceptance; decision on plea agreement deferred; parties warned about appellate-waiver consequences

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (failure to object to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation waives de novo review and appellate rights)
Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers, 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987) (failure to timely object to an R&R results in waiver of appeal and de novo review)
United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981) (same principle regarding waiver by failure to object to R&R)