United States v. Orellana, 5:18-cr-04007

Defendant Andrew Orellana was indicted on one count on February 20, 2018.
On April 18, 2019, Orellana pleaded guilty to Count 1 before Chief Magistrate Judge Kelly K.E. Mahoney.
Judge Mahoney issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending the district court accept the guilty plea.
No party filed objections to the R&R within the time allowed.
The district court reviewed the R&R for clear error, found none, and accepted the recommendation and Orellana’s guilty plea.
The court noted that a defendant may request de novo review and referenced authority suggesting a possible right to de novo review even without objections.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to accept the magistrate judge’s recommendation to accept the guilty plea	United States urged acceptance of the R&R recommending the plea be accepted	Orellana did not object to the R&R; no opposing argument presented	Court accepted the R&R and entered acceptance of the guilty plea
Standard of review for an R&R with no objections	Government relied on 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 59(b) implying clear-error review when no objections are filed	No objection filed; noted defendant may still seek de novo review if requested	Court applied the "clearly erroneous" standard and reviewed the R&R accordingly; found no clear error

Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793 (8th Cir. 1996) (no objections to an R&R ordinarily triggers clear-error review)
Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (defines the "clearly erroneous" standard)
United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (1948) (discusses standards for appellate review of findings)
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (district court may elect de novo review even absent objections)
United States v. Cortez-Hernandez, [citation="673 F. App'x 587"] (8th Cir. 2016) (noting a defendant may have the right to de novo review of a magistrate judge’s plea recommendation)