ORDER

TIMOTHY C. BATTEN, Sr., District Judge.

This case is currently before the Court on Magistrate Judge C. Christopher Hagy's Report and Recommendation (the "R&R") [119], which recommends that Defendant Emmanuel Terrell's motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 be denied as successive and that Terrell be denied a certificate of appealability. No objections to the R&R have been filed.

A district judge has a duty to conduct a "careful and complete" review of a magistrate judge's R&R. Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 408 (5th Cir. 1982)).1 This review may take different forms, however, depending on whether there are objections to the R&R. The district judge must "make a de novo determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In contrast, those portions of the R&R to which no objection is made need only be reviewed for clear error. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).2

After conducting a complete and careful review of the R&R, the district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Williams, 681 F.2d at 732. The district judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

The Court has conducted a careful and complete review of the R&R and finds no clear error in its factual or legal conclusions. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS AS ITS ORDER the R&R [119]. Terrell's motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [113] is DENIED as successive, and Terrell is DENIED a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.