Milam v. USA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
CRAIG MITCHELL MILAM, 	§
#73058-509, 	§
§
Petitioner, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Case No. 6:24-cv-87-JDK-JDL
§
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	§
§
Respondent. 	§
ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Movant Craig James Milam filed this pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or
correct his federal sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 	The case was referred to
United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love for findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and recommendations for the disposition of the case.
On September 30, 2025, Judge Love issued a Report recommending that the
motion be denied on the merits, that this action be dismissed with prejudice, and that
a certificate of appealability be denied. Docket No. 6. A copy of the Report was mailed
to Movant, who has not filed written objections. Docket No. 7.
This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de
novo if a party objects within fourteen days of the Report and Recommendation. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 	In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire
record and makes an independent assessment under the law. 	Douglass v. United
Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other
Case 6:24-cv-00087-JDK-JDL Document 9 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from
ten to fourteen days).
Here, Movant did not object in the prescribed period. 	The Court therefore
reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and
reviews his legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. 	See
United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S.
918 (1989) (holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the
standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”).
Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case,
the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to
law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 6) as the findings of this Court. Movant’s
motion is hereby DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Court
DENIES a certificate of appealability.
Case 6:24-cv-00087-JDK-JDL Document 9 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>