United States v. Nawanna, 5:17-cr-04019

Indictment returned March 22, 2017; Tyson Scott Nawanna charged in Counts 1–3.
On May 18, 2017, Nawanna pled guilty before Magistrate Judge Kelly K.E. Mahoney.
Magistrate Judge Mahoney filed a Report and Recommendation on May 19, 2017 recommending acceptance of the plea.
No party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation within the statutory period.
The district judge reviewed the R&R for clear error and, finding none, accepted the guilty plea as to Counts 1–3 on June 6, 2017.
The court noted an Eighth Circuit unpublished decision suggesting a possible right to de novo review of a magistrate’s plea acceptance recommendation and offered to perform de novo review if timely requested.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standard of review for a magistrate judge’s R&R when no objections filed	28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b): clear-error review applies	No objection was filed; defendant did not press a contrary position	Court applied clear-error review to the unobjected-to R&R
Whether magistrate’s recommendation to accept guilty plea should be accepted	Magistrate recommended acceptance; United States urged acceptance	Nawanna submitted no objections to the R&R	Court accepted the R&R and accepted the guilty plea to Counts 1–3
Effect of failure to object within 14 days	Failure to object permits clear-error review rather than de novo review	Defendant did not object; may seek de novo review by request	Court offered de novo review if Nawanna files written request within 7 days; otherwise clear-error review stands
Weight of precedent suggesting de novo review despite no objections	Statutory framework supports clear-error review absent objection	Unpublished authority (Cortez-Hernandez) suggests possible right to de novo review	Court acknowledged the unpublished suggestion but followed statutory clear-error approach while consenting to de novo review upon request

Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1985) (defines the “clearly erroneous” standard of review)
United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1948) (explicates principles underlying clearly erroneous standard)
Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793 (8th Cir. 1996) (discusses district court’s review role when no objections to magistrate’s findings are filed)
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1985) (permits district court discretion to undertake de novo review even when no objections are filed)