United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION ON
HORN BOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the Recommended Disposition
filed by United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram [R.
278]. The Recommended Disposition addresses whether Defendant
Kim Myrick is competent to proceed to trial pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 4241 and 4247(d).
receiving the forensic report by forensic psychologist Dr.
Jeremiah Dwyer, Ph.D. [R. 172], Magistrate Judge Ingram
conducted a competency hearing on October 22, 2018. [R. 278
at pp. 1-2] Dr. Dwyer's report initially opined that the
Defendant was competent, but identified “certain
cognitive deficits and competency factors that could be
impacted by those deficits, leaving those factors to be
assessed by the Court.” Id. Upon defense
counsel's request, the hearing was continued to enable
assessment of how to continue. Id. at p. 2. After
appointment of new defense counsel, a second psychologist,
Dr. Dustin Wygant, was hired. Id. Dr. Wygant issued
a report [R. 264] opining that the defendant has an
intellectual disability impacting “his ability to
assist properly in his own defense” and that he
“appears to lack the rational and decisional capacity
often required of defendants in a trial setting.” [R.
278 at p. 2]
competency hearing was reconvened on April 25, 2019; at the
hearing, “counsel indicated that an agreement had been
reached concerning Defendant's competency, ” since
both psychologists agreed with Dr. Wygant's opinion and
further agreed that the defendant should be treated to try
and restore his competency. Id.
based on the undisputed proof (including the reports from
both Dr. Dwyer and Dr. Wygant as well as the evidence and
testimony presented at the October 22, 2018 and the April 25,
2019 hearings), the Magistrate Judge recommended that the
undersigned find by a preponderance of the evidence that the
defendant is presently suffering from a mental disease or
defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that
he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the
proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense.
Id. at pp 3-4. Such a finding, as Judge Ingram
correctly noted, triggers the defendant's mandatory
commitment to the custody of the Attorney General for
treatment at a suitable facility. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 4241(d). Judge Ingram therefore recommended that the
defendant be committed to the custody of the Attorney General
for treatment at such a facility and that he remain there for
a reasonable period of time, not to exceed four months, as is
necessary to determine whether there is a substantial
probability that the defendant will attain the capacity to
permit further proceedings to take place in the foreseeable
future. Id. at pp. 4-5, citing 18 U.S.C.
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). 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 recommended disposition are also barred from
appealing a district court's order adopting that
recommended disposition. United States v. White, 874
F.3d 490, 495 (6th Cir. 2017); United States v.
Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).
Judge Ingram's Recommended Disposition advised the
parties that any objections must be filed within three (3)
days. [R. 278 at p. 5] The time to file objections has
passed, and no party has filed any objections to the
Recommended Disposition nor sought an extension of time to do
so. See Id. at p. 5; Fed. R. Crim P. 59(b).
Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record, and agrees
with the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Disposition.
and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Recommended Disposition
[R. 278] is ADOPTED as the
opinion of this Court.
2. The Court FINDS that Defendant Kim Myrick
is not competent to face further proceedings in this matter.
3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to
provide a copy of this Order to the United States Probation
Office and the United States Marshal.
4. The Pretrial Conference currently set for May 7, 2019 is
REMANDED from the Court's calendar, to
be reset by further order. ...