USA v. HUGULEY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
MELDAMION ANTOINE HUGULEY, )
)
Petitioner, )
) 1:18-cr-205-1
v. ) 1:25-cv-1101
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Respondent. )
ORDER
This matter is before the court for review of the
Recommendation and Order (“Recommendation”) filed on December
10, 2025, by the United States Magistrate Judge in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). (Doc. 116.) The Magistrate Judge
construes Petitioner’s filing as a motion to vacate, set aside,
or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and recommends
dismissal of this action for failure to obtain certification by
filing a Motion for Authorization in the court of appeals as
required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255 and 2244 and Fourth Circuit Local
Rule 22(d). The Recommendation was served on the parties in this
action on December 10, 2025. (Doc. 117.) Petitioner filed a
pleading entitled “Writ of Mandamus (Order Compliance With Law)”
treated as objections to the Recommendation. (Doc. 118.)
Case 1:18-cr-00205-WO Document 119 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
This court is required to “make a de novo determination of
those portions of the [Magistrate Judge’s] report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This court “may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the [M]agistrate [J]udge. . . . [O]r recommit the matter
to the [M]agistrate [J]udge with instructions.” Id.
This court has appropriately reviewed the portions of the
Recommendation to which the objections were made and has made a
de novo determination which is in accord with the Magistrate
Judge’s Recommendation. Petitioner’s objections warrant no
relief. This court therefore adopts the Recommendation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation, (Doc. 116), is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
that this action is DISMISSED for failure to obtain
certification for this § 2255 application by filing a Motion for
Authorization in the court of appeals as required by 28 U.S.C.
§§ 2255 and 2244 and Fourth Circuit Local Rule 22(d).
The court further finds there is no substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right affecting the conviction
nor a debatable procedural ruling, therefore a certificate of
appealability is not issued.
Case 1:18-cr-00205-WO Document 119 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
A Judgment dismissing this action will be entered
contemporaneously with this Order.
This the 20th day of January, 2026.
__________________________________
United States District Judge
Case 1:18-cr-00205-WO Document 119 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 3