MOTION TO VACATE 28 U.S.C. § 2255

ELEANOR L. ROSS, District Judge.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Linda T. Walker [Doc. 308]. Judge Walker recommends that Petitioner's § 2255 Motion [Doc. 291] be denied and a Certificate of Appealability be denied as well. In the time period allotted for the parties to object to the R&R, Petitioner, filed pro se objections [Doc 310]. For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS the R&R and OVERRULES Petitioner's objections.

The district court reviewing an R&R "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed finings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If neither party objects, the district judge need only review the R&R for clear error and "may accept, reject, or modifu, in whole or in pdft, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. A party objecting to an R&R "must specifically identiff those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court." United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1361 (11th Cir.2009) (quoting Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988)) (internal quotation marks omitted.). If there are no specific objections made to factual findings made by the magistrate judge, there is no requirement that those findings be reviewed de novo. Garvey v. Vauehn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993). Absent objection, the district court judge "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate [judge]," 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and may accept the recommendation if it is not clearly erroneous or contrary to the law. Fed. R. Crim. P. 59. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)((1)C), and Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the R&R to which Defendant objects and has reviewed the remainder of the R&R for plain effor. See United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983).

After conducting a de novo review of those portions of the R&R to which Petitioner objects and reviewing the remainder of the R&R for plain etror, this Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's factual and legal conclusions are correct.

Accordingly the Court OVERRULES Petitioner's Objections and ADOPTS the R&R [Doc. 308] as the Opinion and Order of this Court. For the reasons stated in the R&R, the Court DENIES Petitioner's Motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Doc. 2911. Additionally, the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability because after considering 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), the Court finds that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to CLOSE the civil case associated with Petitioner's § 2255 Motion: Civil Action No. 1:16-CV-4511-ELR-LTW.

SO ORDERED.