USA v. Prather

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
Terrance Prather,
Defendant.
REPORT and
RECOMMENDATION
24-mj-563
APPEARANCES
For Plaintiff: 	Jeremiah Robert Newhall
Newhall Law Firm
1630 Empire Blvd
Suite 3
Webster, NY 14580
For Defendant: 	Sean C. Eldridge
U.S. Attorney’s Office
100 State Street
Suite 500
Rochester, NY 14614
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Pedersen, M.J. Defendant Terrance Prather moved, unopposed, for a com-
petency evaluation in this case under 18 U.S.C. § 4241. (ECF No. 33, Sept. 26, 2025;
see ECF No. 36, Sept. 29, 2025.) I granted that request and ordered a psychiatric or
psychological examination of Defendant under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(b). (ECF No. 37,
Sept. 30, 2025.) Dr. Kaitlyn Nelson, Forensic Unit Psychologist at the Metropolitan
Correctional Center Chicago, Illinois, conducted that examination and prepared a de-
tailed report opining that Defendant is competent to proceed. “[I]n an abundance of
Case 6:24-mj-00563-MJP Document 48 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 3

2
caution,” I set forth my findings on Defendant’s motion in a Report and Recommen-
dation, as opposed to a Decision and Order. United States v. Foltz, No. 16-MJ-511,
2018 WL 2175554, at *3 n.1 (W.D.N.Y. May 9, 2018), report and recommendation
adopted, No. 16-MJ-511-JWF, 2018 WL 2192198 (W.D.N.Y. May 11, 2018) (“Since a
Magistrate Judge is generally the only judicial officer who exercises jurisdiction over
a criminal defendant between the time of arrest and the time of indictment, the con-
tention that such a competency ruling is beyond the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge
appears contrary to the intent of the statute.”) (internal citation modified).
Based on Dr. Nelson’s report, my own observations of Defendant in court, and
the lack of other evidence presented at the hearing on January 12, 2026, I report and
recommend that the Honorable Elizabeth A. Wolford, Chief Judge, find Defendant
competent under 18 U.S.C. § 4241. Based on my review of the report and the record
before me, I first report and recommend a finding that Defendant is not presently
suffering from a mental disease or defect that would render him mentally incompe-
tent to the extent that he would be unable to understand the nature and consequences
of the proceedings against him. Likewise, I report and recommend a finding that De-
fendant can assist properly in his defense.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), I hereby
ORDER, that this Report and Recommendation be filed with the Clerk of the
Court.
ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with
the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days after receipt of a copy of this Report
and Recommendation in accordance with the above statute and, as applicable, Local
Rule of Criminal Procedure 59(b) or Local Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). The parties
Case 6:24-mj-00563-MJP Document 48 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 3

3
are directed to review the applicable Local Rule of Civil or Criminal Proce-
dure.
The district court will ordinarily refuse to consider on de novo review argu-
ments, case law and/or evidentiary material which could have been, but was not, pre-
sented to the magistrate judge in the first instance. See, e.g., Paterson-Leitch Co. v.
Mass. Mun. Wholesale Elec. Co., 840 F.2d 985 (1st Cir. 1988).
Failure to file objections within the specified time or to request an ex-
tension of such time waives the right to appeal the District Court’s Order.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Small v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 892
F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989); Wesolek v. Canadair Ltd., 838 F.2d 55 (2d Cir. 1988).
Failure to comply with the provisions of the Local Rules of Criminal
or Civil Procedure may result in the District Court’s refusal to consider the
objection.
Let the Clerk send a copy of this Order and a copy of the Report and Recom-
mendation to the attorneys for the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 	January 13, 2026
Rochester, NY
HON. MARK W. PEDERSEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 6:24-mj-00563-MJP Document 48 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 3