Order Accepting Report and Recommendation Regarding Guilty Plea — United States v. Mark Allen Mendenhall

Summary

An order accepting a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation regarding a guilty plea, filed July 31, 2025 as Document 42 in United States v. Mark Allen Mendenhall, No. CR24-4082-LTS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Western Division. The order states that a one-count indictment was filed on November 14, 2024, and that on July 16, 2025 the defendant appeared before Chief United States Magistrate Judge Kelly K.E. Mahoney and pleaded guilty to Count 1. No objections to the report and recommendation (Doc. 40) were filed, so the court reviews it for clear error under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court accepts the report without modification and accepts the guilty plea as to Count 1. The signature block names Leonard T. Strand, United States District Judge.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

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



 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                Plaintiff,                               No. CR24-4082-LTS
 vs.                                           ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE
                                                   JUDGE’S REPORT AND
                                               RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
 MARK ALLEN MENDENHALL,                          DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA
                Defendant.




                                   I. BACKGROUND
        On November 14, 2024, a one-count indictment was filed against defendant. On
July 16, 2025, defendant appeared before the Honorable Kelly K.E. Mahoney, Chief
United States Magistrate Judge, and entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the indictment.
On July 16, 2025, Judge Mahoney filed a Report and Recommendation (R&R) in which
she recommended that defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. Doc. 40. No objections to
the R&R were filed. I therefore undertake the necessary review of Judge Mahoney’s
recommendation to accept defendant’s plea in this case.


                             II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS
        A district judge must review a magistrate judge’s R&R in a criminal case under
the following standards:
        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



       Case 5:24-cr-04082-LTS-KEM      Document 42      Filed 07/31/25    Page 1 of 3
       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 an R&R, the district judge must undertake a de novo review of that portion.
       Any portions of an R&R 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)). However, a district judge may elect to review an R&R under
a more-exacting standard even if no objections are filed:
       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, 150 (1985).


                                   III. DISCUSSION
       Because neither party objects to the R&R, I have reviewed it for clear error. Based
on that review, I am not “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been committed.” Anderson, 470 U.S. at 573-74. As such, I hereby accept the R&R


                                             2




    Case 5:24-cr-04082-LTS-KEM         Document 42       Filed 07/31/25    Page 2 of 3
without modification and accept defendant’s plea of guilty in this case as to Count 1 of
the indictment.


      IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of July, 2025.




                                        __________________________
                                        Leonard T. Strand
                                        United States District Judge




                                           3




    Case 5:24-cr-04082-LTS-KEM        Document 42     Filed 07/31/25   Page 3 of 3


File and source

File

42.pdf

Size

117,911 bytes

SHA-256

2ccb9318e3e8366ac65af2aa2e29445999cbdeb67a747f7cd49bd81a55c8c378

Our copy

42.pdf

Original

No public link identified.