Opinion
Criminal Action No. 1:18-CR-50-1
09-04-2019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. TERRICK ROBINSON, Defendant.
(JUDGE KLEEH)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DEFENDANT'S PRO SE MOTION BE DENIED
This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to a referral order entered by Honorable United States District Judge Thomas S. Kleeh on September 3, 2019. (ECF No. 111). On August 28, 2019, Defendant Terrick Robinson filed a pro se Motion (ECF No. 110) Requesting a Hearing Regarding Traffic Stop and Search Warrant that the undersigned construes as a Motion to Suppress. The Defendant further submitted letters to the Court on September 4, 2019 (ECF No. 114) further requesting a hearing on his Motion to Suppress. This motion has not been adopted by the Defendant's attorneys, Edmund J. Rollo and James B. Zimarowski who were appointed as counsel for the Defendant on July 8, 2019 (ECF No. 101) and May 16, 2019 (ECF No. 80) respectively and remain the Defendant's counsel to date. Further, the Government filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendant's Motion on September 3, 2019. (ECF No. 113). For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned RECOMMENDS the Motions (ECF No. 110 and 113) be DENIED.
This Court routinely denies as improvidently filed pro se motions in criminal cases where the Defendant is represented by counsel. This Court will not consider pro se motions filed while a Defendant is represented by counsel. See e.g., United States v. Carranza, 645 F. App'x 297, 300 (4th Cir. 2016) (holding district court was not obligated to consider pro se motion or objections because "[a] criminal defendant has no constitutional or statutory right to proceed pro se while simultaneously being represented by counsel") See also, United States v Ramage, No. 1:09CR61, 2009 WL 4110321, at *2 (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 25, 2009); United States v. Brooks, No. 1:09MJ71, 2009 WL 3365642, at *2 (N.D.W. Va. Oct. 19, 2009 ); United States v. Boulware, No. 1:09CR5, 2009 WL 972606, at *2 (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 8, 2009). Accordingly, because the Defendant has an attorney who has not adopted his client's pro se motions, the undersigned RECOMMENDS the Motion (ECF No. 110) be DENIED as improvidently filed. The undersigned further RECOMMENDS the Government's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply (ECF No. 113) be DENIED AS MOOT.
Any party shall, within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, file with the Clerk of the Court specific written objections identifying the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis for such objection. A copy of such objections should also be submitted to the Honorable Thomas S. Kleeh, United States District Judge. Objections shall not exceed ten (10) typewritten pages or twenty (20) handwritten pages, including exhibits, unless accompanied by a motion for leave to exceed the page limitations, consistent with LR PL P 12.
Failure to timely file written objections to the Report and Recommendation as set forth above shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to provide a copy of this Report and Recommendation to the Defendant at his last known address on the docket, any parties who appear pro se and all counsel of record, as provided in the Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.
Respectfully submitted on September 4, 2019.
/s/_________
MICHAEL JOHN ALOI
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE