United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Frankfort
October 16, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
JULIA MARSHALL, Defendant.
GREGORY F. VAN TATENHOVE, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Recommended Disposition [R. 59] filed by United States Magistrate Judge Robert E. Wier. On June 27, 2014, Defendant Julia Marshall filed a motion requesting the Court to order a mental health evaluation and to consider whether she was mentally competent to stand trial. [R. 43.] Magistrate Judge Robert E. Wier conducted a hearing on that motion and ordered that a competency evaluation be conducted and that the evaluation should be custodial given Marshall's undischarged state prison term. [R. 49, 50, 53.] As ordered by the Court, the evaluation took place at the Federal Medical Center Carswell in Fort Worth, Texas between July 17, 2014, and September 15, 2014, when Marshall arrived back in Lexington, Kentucky. [R. 57.] Marshall, who is detained, was examined by medical staff and evaluated by Dr. Ashley Noble. Boutwell, a licensed BOP forensic psychologist who conducted a series of interviews and summarized her findings in a sealed written report. [R. 56.]
On September 29, 2014, Magistrate Judge Wier conducted a competency hearing on the findings in Dr. Noble's report, and on September 30, 2014, filed the Recommended Disposition. [R. 59.] Based on the findings at the hearing, Magistrate Judge Wier recommended a finding that the Defendant, Julia Marshall, is competent to face further proceedings, including trial. [ Id. at 5-6.] As noted in the Recommended Disposition and pursuant to Rule 59(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the parties were notified to file any objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation within fourteen (14) days of service. [ Id. at 6.] As of this date, neither party has filed objections nor sought an extension of time to do so.
Generally, this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). When no objections are made, 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 examined the record and agrees with Magistrate Judge Wier's Recommended Disposition.
Accordingly, and the Court being sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. The Recommended Disposition [R. 59] as to Defendant Julia Marshall is ADOPTED as and for the Opinion of the Court;
2. The Defendant, Julia Marshall, is found to be competent to face further proceedings, including trial, in this matter; and
3. Trial for Julia Marshall shall proceed as scheduled.