USA v. Steinmetz

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case # 25-CR-6033
v.
DECISION AND ORDER
PATRICK J. STEINMETZ,
Defendant.
On September 12, 2024, Defendant moved for a hearing to determine mental competency,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a). Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson ordered that a psychiatric
examination and hearing be conducted on the matter. 	ECF No. 25. 	An examination was
conducted, and a report duly filed. ECF No. 30. A competency hearing was held on February 11,
2025, before Magistrate Judge Colleen D. Holland. ECF No. 38. On February 12, 2025, Judge
Holland issued a Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that Defendant be found
competent to stand trial. ECF No. 39. No objections have been timely filed. For the reasons that
follow, the R&R is ADOPTED in its entirety, and Defendant is found competent to stand trial.
In reviewing an R&R, this Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When no
objections are filed, the Court is not required to conduct a de novo review of an R&R. Thomas v.
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court
review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when
neither party objects to those findings.”); see also United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38
(2d Cir. 1997) (“We have adopted the rule that failure to object timely to a magistrate judge’s
report may operate as a waiver of any further judicial review of the decision, as long as the parties
receive clear notice of the consequences of their failure to object.”). Rather, the Court reviews an
Case 6:25-cr-06033-FPG-CDH Document 48 Filed 02/28/25 Page 1 of 2

2
R&R only for clear error. See Batista v. Walker, No. 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995).
Judge Holland 	notified 	the parties 	about 	the 	deadline 	to 	file 	objections 	and 	the
consequences for failing to do so. ECF No. 39 at 7. Neither party filed an objection within the
specified time, nor did either party request an extension of time. Review for clear error is therefore
appropriate. Having considered the record, and after reviewing the R&R for clear error, the Court
agrees with Judge Holland’s recommendation and adopts the R&R in its entirety. Defendant is
found competent to stand trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 28, 2025
Rochester, New York
______________________________________
HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR.
United States District Judge
Western District of New York
Case 6:25-cr-06033-FPG-CDH Document 48 Filed 02/28/25 Page 2 of 2