United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge John K.
Larkins, III's Amended Report and Recommendation 
(“R&R”), which recommends that Defendant Jeef
Bonhomme (“Defendant”) be declared not competent
to stand trial and not restorable. The Magistrate Judge
recommends further that the Court direct the Attorney General
to ensure that the director of the Federal Medical Center at
Butner, North Carolina (“FMC Butner”),
determines, under 18 U.S.C. § 4246(a), whether a
certification of dangerousness should be issued. The parties
waived their rights to file objections to the R&R.
August 2, 2016, a federal grand jury returned an indictment
 charging Defendant with two counts of mailing threatening
communications, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876(c).
August 15, 2016, Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman granted
the Government's unopposed motion and ordered Defendant,
under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(b), to undergo psychiatric
evaluation to address Defendant's competence to stand
December 6, 2016, Dr. Joseph S. Zonno, Ph.D., a forensic
psychologist at FMC Butner, issued his forensic mental health
evaluation of Defendant. Dr. Zonno found that Defendant was
exhibiting symptoms of a psychotic disorder that interferes
with his ability to understand the proceedings against him,
communicate effectively with counsel, assist in his own
defense, evaluate evidence, and maintain appropriate
February 9, 2017, Magistrate Judge Larkins conducted a
hearing regarding Defendant's competency. Defendant
refused to attend the hearing. After considering Dr.
Zonno's evaluation and the argument of counsel at the
hearing, Magistrate Judge Larkins found, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that Defendant was presently suffering from
a mental disease or defect rending him mentally incompetent
to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature of
the consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist
properly in his defense. (February 9, 2017, Order  at
1-2). Magistrate Judge Larkins, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
4241(d), committed Defendant to the custody of the Attorney
General for hospitalization and treatment in connection with
further evaluation of Defendant's mental competency.
(Id. at 2).
23, 2017, Warden J.C. Holland provided the Court and counsel
with a further evaluation of Defendant performed by Dr.
Kristina P. Lloyd, Psy. D., a forensic psychologist at FMC
Butner. Dr. Lloyd found that Defendant's mental condition
continued to render him not competent to stand trial.
10, 2017, Magistrate Judge Larkins conducted a status
conference to consider Dr. Lloyd's report. Based on Dr.
Lloyd's report, counsel for the parties agreed that
Defendant is not competent to proceed and that he is unlikely
to be restored to competency, and the Government conceded
that forced administration of medication is not warranted in
this case. (R&R at 3). The parties also agreed that
Defendant should be evaluated, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
4246(a), to determine if he is “presently suffering
from a mental disease or defect as a result of which his
release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to
another person or serious damage to property of
19, 2017, Magistrate Judge Larkins issued his R&R. The
Magistrate Judge concluded, based on Dr. Lloyd's report,
that Defendant is not competent to stand trial and it is not
likely that his competency will be restored. Because
Defendant's mental condition has not improved to permit
proceedings to proceed, Magistrate Judge Larkins recommended
that the Court direct the Attorney General to ensure that the
director of FMC Butner determines, under 18 U.S.C. §
4246, whether a certification of dangerousness should be
31, 2017, the parties “waive[d] their respective rights
to file objections to the [R&R].” ().
conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or
modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59; Williams v.
Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert.
denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). A district judge
“shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). This requires that the district judge
“give fresh consideration to those issues to which
specific objection has been made by a party.”
Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ. of Ga., 896 F.2d
507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990) (internal citations omitted). With
respect to those findings and ...