From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lumiere v. United States

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Mar 23, 2022
18-cv-9170 (JSR) (BCM) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2022)

Opinion

18-cv-9170 (JSR) (BCM) 16-cr-483 (JSR)

03-23-2022

STEFAN LUMIERE, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.


MEMORANDUM ORDER

JED S. RAKOFF, U.S.D.J.

On January 18, 2022, Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report") in the above-captioned matter recommending that the Court deny Stefan Lumiere's motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his resulting sentence based upon a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. ECF No. 59. After the Court granted several extensions, Lumiere filed objections to the Report dated February 17, 2022. See ECF No. 72. Accordingly, the Court has reviewed the underlying motion and considered Lumiere's objections de novo.

Having done so, the Court finds itself in complete agreement with Magistrate Judge Moses's Report and Recommendation and hereby adopts its reasoning by reference. Lumiere has failed to meet the two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel as outlined by the Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Accordingly, the Court hereby denies the § 2255 motion with prejudice. No certificate of appealability shall issue because Lumiere has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the civil case and to close the entries at number 122, 123, and 134 on the docket of the criminal case.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Lumiere v. United States

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Mar 23, 2022
18-cv-9170 (JSR) (BCM) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2022)
Case details for

Lumiere v. United States

Case Details

Full title:STEFAN LUMIERE, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Mar 23, 2022

Citations

18-cv-9170 (JSR) (BCM) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2022)

Citing Cases

Bess v. Chappius

constitute a basis for an ineffective assistance claim.”) (quoting United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82, 90…