Opinion
No. 01-CR-57-LRR.
January 21, 2010
ORDER
The matters before the court are the government's "Amended Motion to Modify Restitution" ("Government's Motion") (docket no. 86) and Defendant Steven E. Smith's "Motion to Review and Modify Restitution" ("Defendant's Motion") (docket no. 90) (together, the "Motions"). United States Magistrate Judge Jon S. Scoles issued a report and recommendation ("Report and Recommendation") (docket no. 101) on the Motions in which he recommended that the undersigned grant the Government's Motion and deny Defendant's Motion.
On August 18, 2009, the government filed the Government's Motion. On October 22, 2009, Defendant filed Defendant's Motion. On November 20, 2009, Judge Scoles held a hearing on the Motions. Attorney Charles H. Nadler represented Defendant, who was personally present. Assistant United States Attorney Martin J. McLaughlin represented the government. On January 6, 2010, Judge Scoles issued the Report and Recommendation. The Report and Recommendation stated that "within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections with the District Court." Report and Recommendation at 11.
The time to object to the Report and Recommendation has expired. Defendant has not filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation. Defendant has thus waived his right to de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez, 484 F.3d 1006, 1010-11 (8th Cir. 2007) ("[Defendant's] `failure to file any objections waived his right to de novo review by the district court of any portion of the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge as well as his right to appeal from the findings of fact therein.'" (quoting United States v. Newton, 259 F.3d 964, 966 (8th Cir. 2001)). The court finds no plain error in Judge Scoles's decision. Accordingly, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (docket no. 101).
IT IS SO ORDERED.