united states versus that as a matter of constitutional due process and just your court must give genova review to parts of the magistrate judges report and recommendation that have been objected to in this case that just your court applied the wrong clear air standard to review as have other districts in the circuit now this circuit has never expressly announced this standard and other circuit what does it matter it why the standards that you claim he should have applied what would have been the difference your honor this is not a harmless error if just a court had given to know the review it would have adequately assess it doesn't seem to help you mental capacity well your honor if we look at both of the pieces of both of the letters that were submitted by the medical by the doctor here  and then in the letter that you reference that mr reagan started sign the settlement agreement not knowing what he was doing and he was not in the right state of mind when he signed it both of these letters are sufficient under for our not have that this court has stated a standard that where there is documentation by a mental health professional that the party has a mental incapacity that in itself the existence of the documentation in itself triggers a duty upon the court to consider whether rules seventeen the protections should be afforded and here that was not those protections were not provided to mr starr in  basis as she says for this for this determination then there should have been a hearing about the magistrate judge who talked the settlement and he she observed that she had been extensive discussion with to a judicial officer who actually saw lots of the person during the settlement and was in a position to assess whether or not he seemed to understand what was going on well when there is a mental illness at issue the courts don't have an obligation to police the conduct of a party to determine whether or not there have they have a nine to one competency that would prevent them from entering into a settlement agreement here where there is documentation that has been submitted throughout the course the litigation there was a duty to at least consider the inquiry of whether rules seventeen c protections applied and in for ali the court has held that failure to consider whether w and he said that mr reagan star was delusional and he was incapable at the time of making any decisions and this admittedly is in relation to his well arrest but it does  mental health professional demonstrating that the party is being or has been treated for mental illness of the type that would render him or her legally incompetent  he has a variety he's being treated for post traumatic stress disorder for severe anxiety for depression and he's been treated since two thousand and fourteen he's still being treated t no assertion i think that's your argument was misleading there is no suggestion by any health care professional that he was delusional at the time of settlement what the doctor says on october rd is that he signed the settlement not knowing what he was doing at the time and was not in the right state of mind how would how would the doctor know that your honor that is the question that should have had enough to know that tell me give me your proffer what are you going to put in the doctor with no not based on his years of treating mr reagan started knowing what medicare never in the right state of mind and what does that mean that he wasn't prepared to do it or that he didn't know what he was doing there's also discussion here about his medications nobody tells us what to medications or what the consequences of them are there you are we have a respectfully your honor the magistrate judge was told on the day of the sidling congress by mr reagan story i got a new medication yesterday so the magistrate judge knew that he had a mental illness but he was being treated for  and in a settlement conference where he's being asked to substantive right telling us what that meant in terms of his being able to make a decision i mean if he had anxiety problems and he saw a medication and there controlling it i mean i'm not sure what the problem is we take guilty pleas from such people all the time your honor i think that the distinction here is that the rule seventeen  concluding that he that the plaintiff was not in the right state of mind when he when he entered the settlement your honor there is documentation that was entered in the same filing e c f number nine on page twelve there psychiatry states that mr reagan starts condition precludes him from making from working under pressure and he can never make a decision in this case he was represented to ask him to make a decision given his mental incapacity without any counsel i think that's the distinction here that it was someone with a documented history of mental illness who was also on represented if he had been appointed counsel as he had requested and it was not ruled on this issue were not before the court thank you very much you really rose to the level of what the rally says verifiable evidence from mental health professional demonstrating that he's been treated for mental illness of the type that would make him legally incompetent the doctor here said a number of things which were at a minimum does that professional have to use the words legally incompetent so what is it that we what what the needs to happen what needs to be said for a professional to trigger a hearing about competency that you need to start with what are exactly the problem that the mental health problems of the person has so you can start with that here we have anxiety disorder adjustment disorder with the press mood and severe depression you could have other ones where you would say that one there is nobody who is going to be competent and needs a guardian ad litum but none of these would rise that level so you need to go beyond that and go he has something and let me explain to you why this person with this condition cannot make decisions and none of that appears in the letters we have extremely conclusory statements of things that the doctor has no basis of knowing for instance he goes back and he says he was forced to plead guilty under duress conditions he suffered at the hands of your legal system he was falsely accused and pressured into pleading to a crime he never committed how is the doctors posed to know that and i think it kind of illness has to be of a type that would render him legally incompetent but that's the st argument that's and that's exactly right and i think that i thought your argument was that whatever various combination of mental concerns were that nobody has suggested they rise to the level of requiring him to have a card or that they would render him legally incompetent that is that is correct your honor and that is our argument and you know i think it's noteworthy that even today my colleague here has basically said the doctor doesn't really show any of the things that would do  that i thank you for pointing out that the comment about delusional was referencing something very different than what occurred here it was referring to what happened when he was arrested that's not really the doctors never come and said this is somebody who's delusional at all times and  in fact i think that a doctor who understood what he was doing would say would be indicating to the court this is not somebody who should be allowed to make decisions on their own and that's not something that's ever in any of these letters basically the letters say give him a think i mean it would certainly be a change and i don't think this court that it certainly had the opportunity many times and has not come down with a whole insane anytime there is any sort of generalized objection done over a view is going to apply  but when the rubber hits the road at the end of the day the judgment has to be from an article three judge and if the judge does is that the statute itself is unconstitutional because the statute says when there has been specific objections going over a view is going to apply so there's another question about whether that statute on its own unconstitutional i'm not going i don't think that this is the case and i'm going to argue that that would be my understanding st time any court has found that if your view is that no matter what the standard is you prevail at that that is correct i mean what harm is there certainly on harm is there which this court can do its own the nova review has done it before i've cited the cases suggest  the specific objection requirement is so that the judge stands exactly what the objections are it doesn't alter the fact that the judge may have an independent review ravensworth came in and said i'm objecting for all the reasons that i said to the magistrate judge and in those circumstances where courts have said that's not that's a generalized objection you can say i'm just look at what i said to the magistrate judge but that's that's not that's not different than just saying i object and that's really what this was this and that in the paper just to make that a requirement i'm not sure that that's an article for the problem per se would be a change to the practice would be a change to what i understand other courts around other circuits around the country have done i'm not going to sit here and fight that hard for it i think that this is a harmless the i object and said you know get an overview on this let me just bring up the actual order here too because i think it's a little muddled what the court was in fact doing here not sure how it's highly relevant but i want to bring it to your attention which is that the court said you know what the standard clear a standard applies if the party merely reiterate and then it says plaintiff's raises no new no new arguments and then he goes on to say there is no credible evidence the plane it was unable to understand that not totally clear to me what the court did look at didn't look at it looked like the court actually looked at some of the evidence here didn't just do plain clear view to the extent that the issue was whether or not he was legally incompetent competent and could understand the sentiment proceeding it seems the judge  overview what he said was he cited the clear clear air standard applies if a party merely reiterates original arguments he goes on to say plain to phrases no you arguments in his objections so by the statute and the clear air standard for arguments that have already been raised has not been not accepted by any other circuit has not been accepted by this circuit and in the case that the it's one sentence and all take some time it's one sentence but it divorced from the previous sentence that says plain to phrases no you arguments and his objection which is based on the standard for clear  while there could be an argument that there was an overview even if that is is found there are still hard that aaron still not harley was because here mr reed a star for should have been appointed counsel under a rule seventeen c hearing and t or the functional equivalent of that that's a standard that is not just that he has a mental illness that it's that he's got mental defect equivalent to legal incompetence your honor and the error here is  failure to even consider that encourage but no no no mental professional says that his deficits rise to that level there's no requirement in the role explicitly that the mental professional themselves have to make that determination really the court's duty especially for someone who's who is on represented to make that determination and i also want to mention the fact that the district court did not give any consideration reggie points out the your your your your client was was observed over a not insubstantial time period on incompetent your honor without a hearing that is that's an inappropriate obligation reli says that you don't have to hold a hearing just because the judge  incompetence the failure is an abuse of discretion if the court is presented one with evidence from a court record that the party has been adjudicated incompetent that's not this case or two and this is the problem i have received verifiable evidence from a mental health professional demonstrating that the party is being more has been treated tillis of the type that would render him or her legally incompetent and i don't see that the materials you put forward would give the judge a reason to think that he wrote that he's honor we would argue that the history of delusions granted the delusional was with respect to the arrest that happened in the paper he entered into but the fact that he has a history of delusions delusions the doctor says he was delusional at the time of the arrest with the history of dilution i mean i understand you have this case pro bono appreciate your vigor on behalf of your client but i'm concerned about whether or argue that we cut it but i also want to make one more distinction in the magistrate judges just in the magistrate judge's decision where he failed to address or consider maybe he considered the evidence about mental illness but he failed to consider any evidence related to the misleading being misled by the city council regarding the general release and the fact that he would have to enter into a general release and that in itself clearly shows that there was