United Statesv.Martin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION FRANKFORTSep 8, 2016
Criminal No. 15-11 (E.D. Ky. Sep. 8, 2016)

Criminal No. 15-11

09-08-2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH DAVID MARTIN, Defendant.


ORDER

*** *** *** ***

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Robert E. Wier's Recommended Disposition. [R. 38.] Judge Wier previously granted Defendant Joseph David Martin's motion for a competency evaluation. [R. 20.] In her evaluation dated June 29, 2016, Dr. Judith Campbell found Martin competent to participate in further proceedings. [R. 31.] The parties were given adequate time to review Dr. Campbell's report, and the Magistrate held a competency hearing on July 14, 2016. [R. 35.] At the hearing, both parties stipulated to the admissibility of the report, the qualifications of the examiner, and the substance of her findings. [R. 38 at 2.]

In the recommendation that followed, Judge Wier appropriately considered the two-step analysis required under 18 U.S.C. § 4241 and Dusky v. United States, 80 S. Ct. 788 (1960). He noted that Dr. Campbell's report was "comprehensive" and that she "thoroughly analyzed [Martin's] history, behavior, course of evaluation, and assessment performance." [R. 38 at 3.] This report concluded that Martin "was able to demonstrate a rational and factual understanding of the charges against him, an ability to recall the events leading up to the alleged offense behaviors, and an ability to assist his lawyer in preparing his defense [if] he so chooses." [R. 31 at 5.] The Magistrate otherwise found "nothing in the record" to dispute Dr. Campbell's conclusion. [Id.]

Generally, this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Recommended Disposition to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). But when no objections are made, as in this case, this Court is not required to "review . . . a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard." See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151 (1985). Parties who fail to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation are also barred from appealing a district court's order adopting that report and recommendation. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, this Court has carefully examined the record and agrees with Judge Wier's recommended disposition. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. The Recommended Disposition [R. 38] as to Joseph David Martin is ADOPTED as and for the Opinion of the Court; and

2. Defendant is found competent to face further proceedings in this matter.

This 8th day of September, 2016.

/s/


Gregory F. Van Tatenhove


United States District Judge