United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Paducah Divsiion
MELVIN S. MOORE Movant,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
THOMAS B. RUSSELL Sr., District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court upon Movant Melvin S. Moore's pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, (Docket No. 32), and the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in which he recommends that the Motion be denied, (Docket No. 45). The Defendant filed no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
Generally, the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of a recommended disposition to which objections are filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). However, when no objections are entered, the Court need not "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). Furthermore, parties who fail to object to a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation are barred from appealing a district court's order adopting that report and recommendation. United States v. Walters , 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
These principles notwithstanding, the Court has examined the record and the Magistrate Judge's recommended disposition and agrees that the Magistrate Judge's analysis is sound. Therefore, the Court being sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Court ADOPTS the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as set forth in the report submitted by the United States Magistrate Judge, (Docket No. 45);
2. Movant's Motion to Vacate Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, (Docket No. 32), is DENIED;
3. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED as to each claim asserted in the Motion to Vacate.
This is a final judgment, and the matter is hereby stricken from the ...