United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Southern Division London
GREGORY F. VAN TATENHOVE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court pending review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Robert E. Wier [R. 543] filed herein on May 27, 2015. Consistent with local practice, the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation addresses Hunter’s writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Recommendation concludes that the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought. Specifically, Judge Wier found that none of Hunter’s four ineffective assistance of counsel claims establishes constitutionally deficient performance. [Id. at 4-17]. In light of that conclusion, he also recommended that the Court deny Hunter’s motion for appointment of counsel [R. 510 at 21] and motion for an evidentiary hearing [id.], both of which are included in Hunter’s memorandum. [R. 543 at 17-18]. Judge Wier also recommended that the Court deny a certificate of appealability. Finally, the Recommendation also advises the parties that any objections to must be filed within fourteen (14) days of service or waive the right to further appeal. [Id. at 3-4]. As of this date, neither Hunter nor the Government has 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. Am, 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 Hunter'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. 543] as to Gary D. Hunter is ADOPTED as and for the Opinion of the Court; 2. Hunter's petition [R. 510] is DENIED; 3. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED; and 4. JUDGMENT in favor of the Respondent will be entered contemporaneously herewith ...