LEONARD T. STRAND, District Judge.
On January 18, 2017, a one-count information was filed against defendant. On January 23, 2017, defendant appeared before the Honorable Kelly K.E. Mahoney, United States Magistrate Judge, and entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the information. On January 25, 2017, Judge Mahoney filed a Report and Recommendation (R&R) in which she recommended that defendant's guilty plea be accepted. Doc. No. 9. 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:
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:
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).
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