USA v. Thomas

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
CEDAR RAPIDS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, 	No. CR25-58-LTS-MAR
vs.
ORDER ON REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION	MARLIN SANTANA THOMAS,
Defendant.
This case is before me on a Report and Recommendation (R&R) filed by the
Honorable Mark A. Roberts, United States Magistrate Judge. 	Doc. 83. 	Judge Roberts
recommends that I deny defendant Marlin Santana Thomas’ motion (Doc. 44) to dismiss
the indictment for improper venue.1 Neither party has filed objections to the R&R and
the time for objections has expired.
A district judge reviews a magistrate judge’s R&R under the following standard:
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
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)(C); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2). 	Because there are no
objections to the R&R, I review its factual findings for plain error. Hajek v. Shalala, 30
F.3d 89, 91–92 (8th Cir. 1994). 	Questions of law are reviewed de novo. 	Thompson v.
1 Thomas has filed another motion (Doc. 42) to dismiss that remains pending.
Case 1:25-cr-00058-LTS-MAR Document 89 Filed 12/31/25 Page 1 of 2

2
Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam); Halpin v. Shalala, 999 F.2d 342,
346 (8th Cir. 1993).
I find the R&R to be wholly correct. 	The indictment expressly alleges that the
charges against Thomas occurred “in the Northern District of Iowa and elsewhere.” Doc.
2. 	As Judge Roberts concluded, that is enough to send the case to trial “and put the
government to its burden of proof.” 	Doc. 83 at 2 (quoting United States v. Hardaway,
999 F.3d 1127, 1130 (8th Cir. 2021)). 	I therefore accept the R&R (Doc. 83) without
modification. Thomas’ motion (Doc. 44) to dismiss for improper venue is hereby denied
without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of December, 2025.
__________________________
Leonard T. Strand
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cr-00058-LTS-MAR Document 89 Filed 12/31/25 Page 2 of 2