Case Information
*1 Case: 6:12-cr-00062-GFVT-HAI Doc #: 34 Filed: 05/22/13 Page: 1 of 2 - Page ID#: 96
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION LONDON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
) Plaintiff, ) Criminal No: 12-62-GFVT
)
V. )
) EARNEST DONALD CARR, ) ORDER
)
Defendant. )
*** *** *** ***
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [R. 29] filed by United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram. The Report and Recommendation addresses the issue of whether Defendant Earnest Donald Carr is competent to stand trial pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241. Judge Ingram advises that based on the competency examination performed by Dr. Judith Campbell, Ph.D., Carr is competent to stand trial and recommends that the Court find him competent for further proceedings in this matter.
Judge Ingram’s Report advises the parties that any objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. [ Id. ] The time to file objections has passed, and neither party has objected 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’s report and *2 Case: 6:12-cr-00062-GFVT-HAI Doc #: 34 Filed: 05/22/13 Page: 2 of 2 - Page ID#: 97
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 the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, the Court being sufficiently and otherwise advised, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
(1) The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [R. 29] is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court; and (2) The Court FINDS that Carr is competent to face further proceedings in this matter including arraignment and trial.
This 22nd day of May, 2013.
2