USA v. Dettbarn

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-CR-1032 CJW-MAR
Plaintiff,
vs. ORDER
ROBERT DETTBARN,
Defendant.
____________________
A Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) by the Honorable Mark A. Roberts,
United States Magistrate Judge, recommending the Court deny defendant’s pro se motion
for return of property, (Doc. 40), is before the Court. (Doc. 63). For the following
reasons, the Court adopts the R&R and denies defendant’s motion.
I. BACKGROUND
On September 27, 2018, defendant pled guilty to possession of firearm by a felon
in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). (Doc.
22). Paragraph 29 of the plea agreement stated
[d]efendant agrees to forfeit and abandon any and all claim to items seized
by law enforcement from defendant at the time of any arrest or search,
including defendant’s arrest and the search of defendant’s person and a
vehicle that defendant occupied on May 22, 2018. Defendant also waives
any right to additional notice of the forfeiture and abandonment of such
property. Defendant stipulates this plea agreement constitutes notice under
Local Criminal Rule 57.3(c) regarding the disposal of any exhibits or
evidence related to this matter. Defendant understands that, from this date
forward, any local, state, or federal law enforcement agency may take
custody of and use, dispose of, and transfer these items in any way the
agency deems appropriate.
(Id., at 11–12). Defendant initialed next to that paragraph. Paragraph 30 listed additional
categories of items that defendant agreed to disclaim property interest in. (Id., at 12–
Case 2:18-cr-01032-CJW-MAR Document 64 Filed 01/29/26 Page 1 of 4

2
13). Defendant initialed next to that paragraph as well. On October 16, 2018, the Court
accepted defendant’s guilty plea. (Doc. 28).
In the instant motion, defendant “seeks the return of his personal property seized
during all stages of his arrest and legal proceedings for which this case arises.” (Doc.
40, at 1). More specifically, he requests return of the following items: “a) wallet; b) one
(1) visa credit card; c) one (1) visa debit card; d) two (2) pocket knives; e) one (1) social
security card; f) one (1) birth certificate; g) Black cellphone (Samsung Galaxy S7);
h) Black cellphone protective case; i) small drawstring bag with engagement ring inside.”
(Id., at 3). Defendant stated that “the items to be returned . . . were not subject to civil
forfeiture, because the items were not used in his criminal case, nor were they seized for
being contraband.” (Id., at 3–4). At the same time, defendant acknowledged that he
pled guilty. (Id., at 5).
In his R&R, Judge Roberts found that the items that defendant requested returned
were seized during his arrest, and, therefore, defendant had forfeited those items under
the plea agreement. (Doc. 63, at 3). Judge Roberts recommends the Court deny
defendant’s motion for return of property. (Id., at 4). Neither party filed an objection.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A district judge must review a magistrate judge’s R&R 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
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. Civ. P. 72(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.
Case 2:18-cr-01032-CJW-MAR Document 64 Filed 01/29/26 Page 2 of 4

3
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 (1985) (alteration in original) (quoting United States
v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). A district judge may, however, 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, 154 (1985). As neither party objected to the R&R, the
Court reviews it for clear error.
III. DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) provides:
A person aggrieved . . . by the deprivation of property may move for the
property’s return. The motion must be filed in the district where the
property was seized. The court must receive evidence on any factual issue
necessary to decide the motion. If it grants the motion, the court must
return the property to the movant, but may impose reasonable conditions to
protect access to the property and its use in later proceedings.
First, “[t]he movant must establish lawful entitlement to the property.” Jackson v. United
States, 526 F.3d 394, 396 (8th Cir. 2008). “This burden is . . . satisfied by showing
that the property was seized from the movant’s possession, as a person from whom
property is seized is presumed to have a right to its return.” Id. The burden then shifts
to the government to “establish a legitimate reason to retain the property.” Id. at 397.
Case 2:18-cr-01032-CJW-MAR Document 64 Filed 01/29/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Here, the Court finds, like Judge Roberts, that defendant forfeited his claim to the
property seized by law enforcement during their investigation of defendant when
defendant entered into the plea agreement. In doing so, he gave up any lawful entitlement
to the property, and his claim fails at the first step as he does not have a right to return
of the property according to the terms of the plea agreement. Thus, Judge Roberts did
not clearly err in concluding that defendant’s motion for return of that property, even if
it was not used in his criminal case or contraband, should be denied.
IV. CONCLUSION
For reasons stated, the Court adopts Judge Roberts’ R&R. (Doc. 63).
Defendant’s motion for return of property (Doc. 40) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of January, 2026.
__________________________
C.J. Williams, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Northern District of Iowa
Case 2:18-cr-01032-CJW-MAR Document 64 Filed 01/29/26 Page 4 of 4