ORDER

TIMOTHY L. BROOKS, District Judge.

Now before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 69) of United States Magistrate Judge Mark E. Ford filed on February 13, 2019, regarding Defendant Johnathan Sansonetti's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Reduce Sentence (Doc. 60). Defendant filed a Response to Set Aside the R&R (Doc. 71), which the Court has construed as his objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the findings and recommendations to which Defendant has lodged specific objections. After review, the Court finds that the objections offer neither law nor fact requiring departure from the Magistrate Judge's findings. Accordingly, the R&R (Doc. 69) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY, and Defendant's § 2255 Petition and Motion to Vacate (Doc. 60) is DENIED.

The R&R is detailed in its analysis and correct in its conclusion that Defendant's claims are wholly unsupported by the record in this case. Defendant's objections to the Magistrate Judge's R&R provide no valid basis for rejecting any of the Magistrate Judge's findings. Indeed, Defendant's Response supplies no new facts or legal reasoning he has not already stated in his § 2255 petition.

For example, Defendant restates his argument that his counsel failed to adequately investigate his claims and file a motion to dismiss. He fails to explain, however, why the Magistrate Judge's analysis of the law and review of the facts were incorrect. Defendant simply disagrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion and insists that his counsel erred. Defendant has offered no facts or law that demonstrate that those findings should be set aside beyond mere conclusory statements to the effect that Defendant was unaware of the quantity of meth he could be held accountable for or that his attorney failed to meet the constitutional standards for effective assistance of counsel.1 He does not object to the Magistrate Judge's finding that his guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, and the law is clear that a knowing and voluntary plea waives all non-jurisdictional defenses, including an attorney's failure to investigate all of the defendant's possible defenses to the charges or an attorney's refusal to file a motion to dismiss the indictment. See Tucker v. United States, 470 F.2d 220, 222 (8th Cir. 1972) (per curiam) ("The plea of guilty having been voluntarily and understandingly made is conclusive on the issue of guilt and waives all non-jurisdictional defects in the proceedings against petitioner.").

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 69) of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. Defendant Johnathan Sansonetti's § 2255 Petition and Motion to Vacate (Doc. 60) is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Further, should the Defendant request a certificate of appealability, it will be denied for the reasons stated in the R&R.

IT IS SO ORDERED.