REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court ordered a forensic competency examination of defendant Steven Sutton after finding reasonable cause to suspect that he is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to stand trial. Doc. 21. After evaluating him at Lexington Federal Medical Center, the forensic psychologist concluded that defendant
is not currently suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or properly assist in his defense.
Doc. 25 at 9.
Defendant and counsel for the parties have stipulated to the report's findings and conclusions. Doc. 27. Based upon the unrebutted psychological evidence, the Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that Pruitt is able to understand the proceedings against him and assist properly in his defense. See doc. 25 at 7-9.
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the defendant be held competent to stand trial. This finding shall not prejudice the defendant in raising the issue of his insanity as a defense to the offense charged, however, and shall not be admissible as evidence at trial for the offense charged. 18 U.S.C. § 4241(f).
This Report and Recommendation (R&R) is submitted to the district judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's Local Rule 72.3. Within 14 days of service, any party may file written objections to this R&R with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations." Any request for additional time to file objections should be filed with the Clerk for consideration by the assigned district judge.
After the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this R&R together with any objections to the assigned district judge. The district judge will review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver of rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonett v. V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 F. App'x 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016); Mitchell v. U.S., 612 F. App'x 542, 545 (11th Cir. 2015).
SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED, this 27th day of January, 2017.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA