Opinion
Case No. 6:07-cr-191-Orl-19KRS.
April 14, 2008
ORDER
This case comes before the Court on the following:
1. Motion for Release from Custody and to Dismiss the Indictment by Defendant Derrick Williams (Doc. No. 9, filed Mar. 20, 2008);
2. Second Motion for Release from Custody by Defendant Derrick Williams (Doc. No. 16, filed Mar. 28, 2008);
3. Order denying Defendant's Motions at Docket Numbers 9 and 16 by United States Magistrate Judge Spaulding (Doc. No. 17, filed Apr. 1, 2008); and
4. Objection to the Order of United States Magistrate Judge Spaulding at Docket Number 17 by Defendant Derrick Williams (Doc. No. 22, filed Apr. 7, 2008).
Defendant Derrick Williams was charged by indictment with unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of Title 18 of the United States Code, Sections 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). (Doc. No. 1, filed Nov. 7, 2007.) Several months later, Defendant filed a Motion pro se, asking the Court to dismiss the indictment and release him from custody. (Doc. No. 9, filed Mar. 20, 2008.) Subsequently, the Federal Public Defender was appointed to represent Defendant. (Doc. No. 13, filed Mar. 26, 2008.) United States Magistrate Judge Spaulding ordered that Defendant be detained pending trial. (Doc. No. 14, filed Mar. 26, 2008.)
After the appointment of the Federal Public Defender, Defendant nevertheless personally mailed to the Clerk of the Court a Second Motion for Release from Custody. (Doc. No. 16, filed Mar. 28, 2008.) Judge Spaulding denied Defendant's Motions at Docket Numbers 9 and 16 without prejudice and explained, "Defendant Williams is represented by counsel. He is, therefore, not permitted to file motions on his own behalf." (Doc. No. 17, filed Apr. 1, 2008.) Despite this Order, Defendant has once again personally filed an Objection to Judge Spaulding's Order. (Doc. No. 22, filed Apr. 7, 2008.) This Objection is currently pending before the Court.
A party may serve and file objections to the order of a magistrate judge on non-dispositive matters within ten days after receiving a copy of that order. Fed.R.Crim.P. 59(a). A district judge "must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is contrary to law or clearly erroneous." Id.
In this case, Judge Spaulding denied Defendant's Motions without prejudice to reasserting them through counsel of record. (Doc. No. 17.) Local Rule 2.03(d) provides, "Any party for whom a general appearance of counsel has been made shall not thereafter take any step or be heard in the case in proper person, absent prior leave of Court. . . ." Therefore, Judge Spaulding's Order is neither contrary to law nor clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the Court must deny Defendant's Objection and further admonishes Defendant not to personally file any more documents with the Court while Defendant is represented by an attorney. All motions and argument to the Court on behalf of Defendant should be made through the Federal Public Defender absent prior leave of the Court. No such leave has been granted in this case.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Court OVERRULES Defendant's Objection to Judge Spaulding's Order at Docket Number 17. (Doc. No. 22.)DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida.