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. 148] filed herein on December 15, 2014. Consistent with local practice, the Report and Recommendation addresses Anderson's motion to vacate, set aside or correct her sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Report and Recommendation concludes that Anderson's § 2255 motion should be denied as moot since the relief she requests - an avenue by which to appeal her conviction - has already been provided by the Sixth Circuit. [R. 148 at 2-3.] The Recommendation also advises the parties that any objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of service or waive the right to further appeal. [R. 148 at 3.] 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 Anderson'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. 148] as to Kweita M. Anderson is ADOPTED as and for the Opinion of the Court;
2. Anderson's § 2255 motion [R. 136] is DENIED as moot;
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 ...