Reported / Citable
Background
In this criminal case, the district court referred the administration of Ana Karina Cervantes’s guilty plea and Rule 11 allocution to a United States magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Cervantes consented to the magistrate judge conducting those proceedings.
The magistrate judge issued a Memorandum and Recommendation concerning the plea. The time to object expired, and no party filed objections.
The Court’s Holding
District Judge Ernest Gonzalez accepted the magistrate judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Because no objections were filed, the court stated that de novo review was unnecessary and reviewed the recommendation for clear error or legal inconsistency.
Finding the recommendation neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, the court accepted Cervantes’s guilty plea to Count One of the indictment.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant may consent to a magistrate judge’s administration of a guilty plea and Rule 11 allocution.
- Absent objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court need not conduct de novo review of the recommendation.
- The order accepts the plea to Count One; it does not impose sentence or describe the offense charged.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the routine use of magistrate judges in federal plea proceedings when the defendant consents. It also underscores that parties who do not timely object to a plea-related recommendation forgo de novo district-court review of unchallenged portions.