United States District Court, W.D. New York
October 8, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
RAYMOND OUELLETTE, Defendant.
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
MARIAN W. PAYSON, Magistrate Judge.
By Order of Hon. David G. Larimer, United States District Judge, dated June 10, 2014, all pretrial matters in the above-captioned case have been referred to this Court pursuant to 28 u.s.c. §§ 636(b)(1)(A)-(B). (Docket # 3s).
On June 10, 2013, counsel for defendant filed a motion to determine competency. (Docket # 16). On June 13, 2013, this Court found reasonable cause to believe that defendant Raymond Ouellette may presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him and to assist properly in his defense. (Docket # 18). This Court 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. ( Id . at2). A competency hearing was held on October 10, 2013, and continued on June 20, 2014. (Docket ## 26, 37-38). Post-hearing submissions were thereafter filed by the parties. (Docket ## 40, 46).
For the reasons explained more fully on the record on October 6, 2014, 1 recommend that the district court determine, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d), that the defendant is currently 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 59(b) of the Local Rules of Criminal Procedure for the Westem 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. v. Mass. Mun. Wholesale Elec. Co., 840 F.2d 985 (lst 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 , 474U.5. 140 (1985); Small v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs. , 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 59(b) of the Local Rules of Criminal Procedure for the Western District of New York, "[w]ritten 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 59(b) 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.