United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division, London
GREGORY F. VAN TATENHOVE, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court pending review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Edward B. Atkins [R. 336] filed herein on May 23, 2013. Consistent with local practice, the Report and Recommendation addresses Caddell's motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Report and Recommendation concludes that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought because his sentence was properly computed under the new guidelines set forth in the Fair Sentencing Act. It also advises the parties that any objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of service or waive the right to further appeal. [ Id. at 5.] As of this date, neither of the parties have filed objections or sought an extension of time to do so.
Generally, this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of a recommended disposition to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). When no objections are made, however, this Court is not required to "review... a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard...." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Parties who fail to object to a Magistrate's report and recommendation are also barred from appealing a district court's order adopting that report and recommendation. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record, and it agrees with the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Disposition. Furthermore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. The Court determines that reasonable jurists would not find the denial of Caddell's § 2255 motion debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
Accordingly, and the Court being sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate's Recommended Disposition [R. 336] as to Robert E. Caddell is ADOPTED as and for the Opinion of the Court;
2. Caddell's motion [R. 324] is DENIED;
3. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED; and
4. JUDGMENT in favor of the Respondent will be entered contemporaneously herewith and this matter will be STRICKEN ...