Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION 6:17-cr-070-2-CHB
06-04-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. KIM MYRICK, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION ON COMPETENCY
CLARIA HORN BOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on the Recommended Disposition filed by United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram [R. 560]. The Recommended Disposition addresses whether Defendant Kim Myrick is competent to proceed to trial under 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241 and 4247.
After reviewing the competency evaluation by forensic neuropsychologist Dr. Tracy Pennuto, J.D., Ph.D. (“the Second Pennuto Report”) [R. 513], the Certificate of Restoration of Competition to Stand Trial [R. 512], the report of defense expert and licensed psychologist Dr. Dustin Wygant, Ph.D. (“the 2021 Wygant Report”) [R. 545-1], all prior competency reports [R. 172, 264, 377, 475], and conducting a hearing, Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram concluded, in accordance with Dr. Pennuto's second report, that “Defendant is able to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him and to assist properly in his own defense.” [R. 560 p. 20]. The Magistrate Judge recommended that the district court find the Defendant is competent to face further proceedings, including trial, in this matter. Id.
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). 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 fourteen (14) days. [R. 560 p. 20]. The time to file objections has passed, and neither party has filed any objections to the Recommended Disposition nor sought an extension of time to do so. See Id. at 7; Fed. R. Crim P. 59(b). Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record, and agrees with the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Disposition.
Accordingly, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Recommended Disposition [R. 560] is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.
2. The Court FINDS that Defendant Kim Myrick is competent to face further proceedings in this matter.
3. The time between June 8, 2018 (the date of the filing of the Motion to Determine Mental Competency as to Kim Myrick) and the date of this Order (finding the defendant mentally competent) is DECLARED excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(A); (h)(1)(D); (h)(1)(H). The Court FINDS that the period of delay results from a proceeding or examination to determine the mental competency of a defendant and is therefore excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(A); (h)(1)(D); (h)(1)(H).