United States v. Pigg

Jul 17, 2026
6:25-cr-00035

ORDER

*** *** *** ***

After conducting Rule 11 proceedings, see DE 24 (Minute Entry), United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram recommended that the undersigned accept Defendant Pigg‘s guilty plea and adjudge him guilty of the sole count of the Indictment (DE 1). See DE 25 (Recommendation); see also DE 21 (Plea Agreement). Judge Ingram expressly informed Defendant of his right to object to the recommendation and to secure de novo review from the undersigned. See DE 25 at 2–3. The established, three-day objection deadline has passed, and no party has objected.

The Court is not required to “review . . . a magistrate[ judge]‘s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.” Thomas v. Arn, 106 S. Ct. 466, 472 (1985); see also Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019) (noting that the Sixth Circuit has “long held that, when a defendant does ‘not raise an argument in his objections to the magistrate[ judge]‘s report and recommendation . . . he has forfeited his right to raise this issue on appeal‘” (quote brackets simplified) (quoting Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 176 (6th Cir. 1996))); United States v. Olano, 133 S. Ct. 1770, 1777 (1993) (distinguishing waiver and forfeiture); FED. R. CRIM. P. 59(b)(2)–(3) (limiting de novo review duty to “any objection” filed); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (limiting de novo review duty to “those portions” of the recommendation “to which objection is made“).

The Court thus, with no objection from any party and on full review of the record, ORDERS as follows:

  1. The Court ADOPTS DE 25, ACCEPTS Pigg‘s guilty plea, and ADJUDGES him guilty of sole count of the Indictment (DE 1); and
  2. The Court will issue a separate sentencing order.1

This the 17th day of July, 2026.

Signed By:

Robert E. Wier

United States District Judge

Notes

1
At the hearing, Judge Ingram remanded Pigg to custody. See DE 24 at 2. This was his status following arraignment. See DE 10 at 2. Absent intervening orders, Defendant shall remain in custody pending sentencing.