United States District Court, W.D. New York
August 14, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
RONNIE PARKER, Defendant.
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
MARIAN W. PAYSON, Magistrate Judge.
By Order of Hon. Elizabeth A. Walford, United States District Judge, dated April 10, 2014, all pre-trial matters in the above-captioned case have been referred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A)-(B). (Docket # 12).
On March 6, 2014, counsel for the government filed a motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a) for a hearing to determine the mental competency of the defendant, which the defendant opposed. (Docket ## 5, 7). Finding reasonable cause to believe that the defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him unable to understand the nature and consequence of the proceedings against him and to assist properly in his defense, the Court scheduled a competency hearing for May 12, 2014, which was thereafter adjourned until August 13, 2014. (Docket ## 14, 16). The Court further ordered, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(b), that the defendant undergo a psychiatric examination, with the results of such examination to be reported to the Court and counsel. (Docket # 14).
Prior to the competency hearing, the Court received a report containing the results of defendant's psychiatric examination, which opined that defendant was currently competent to stand trial. At the hearing, on August 13, 2014, neither the government, nor the defense contested the report or the opinions contained therein. Upon review of the report, and considering the absence of contradictory evidence, this Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant is not presently suffering from a mental disease or defect that would render him mentally incompetent to the extent that he would be unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or render him unable to assist properly in his defense. See 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d). Accordingly, it is the recommendation of this Court that defendant be determined competent to stand trial.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), it is hereby
ORDERED, that this Report and Recommendation be filed with the Clerk of the Court.
ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days after receipt of a copy of this Report and Recommendation in accordance with the above statute and Rule 58.2(a)(3) of the Local Rules of Criminal Procedure for the Western District of New York.
The district court will ordinarily refuse to consider on de novo review arguments, case law and/or evidentiary material which could have been, but was not, presented to the magistrate judge in the first instance. See, e.g., Paterson-Leitch Co., Inc. v. Massachusetts Mun. Wholesale Elec. Co., 840 F.2d 985 (1st Cir. 1988).
Failure to file objections within the specified time or to request an extension of such time waives the right to appeal the District Court's Order. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Small v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989); Wesolek v. Canadair Ltd., 838 F.2d 55 (2d Cir. 1988).
The parties are reminded that, pursuant to Rule 58.2(a)(3) of the Local Rules of Criminal Procedure for the Western District of New York, "written objections shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made and the basis for such objection and shall be supported by legal authority." Failure to comply with the provisions of Rule 58.2(a)(3) may result in the District Court's refusal to consider the objection.
Let the Clerk send a copy of this Order and a copy of the Report and Recommendation to the attorneys for the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.