United States v. Lidge

Aug 10, 2026
7:23-cr-00013

ORDER

*** *** ***

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram. (R. 70.) Magistrate Judge Ingram conducted an initial review of Petitioner Pierre Lidge’s motion (R. 57) to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Lidge presents many grounds in his § 2255 motion, all of which relate to ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The recommended disposition instructed Lidge to file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with the decision, or else waive his right to further review. (R. 70 at 16.) Lidge has not objected and the time to do so has now passed. Where, as here, neither party objects to a magistrate judge’s findings, “[i]t 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 . . . .” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).

Having reviewed the record and the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s analysis and conclusions. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS the following:

  1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (R. 70) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court;
  2. Petitioner’s motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (R. 57) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
  3. A certificate of appealability SHALL NOT issue, Petitioner having failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); and
  4. A Judgment will be entered contemporaneously with this Order.

This 10th day of August, 2026.

Signed By:

Karen K. Caldwell

United States District Judge