ORDER

GREGORY F. VAN TATENHOVE, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on a Recommended Disposition filed by United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram. The Plaintiff, Andrew Allen Reeves, filed a pro se complaint against various correctional officers at the Laurel County Correctional Center. [R. 1.] The Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. [R. 46.] Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and this Court's referral, Judge Ingram reviewed the motion and prepared a Recommended Disposition. [R. 50.]

After considering the record, Judge Ingram determined that the Defendants' motion should be granted first because Mr. Reeves never responded to the motion and second because he failed to demonstrate a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. [R. 50 at 5.]

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). No objections have been filed, and the time to do so has now expired. Nevertheless, this Court has considered the record, and it ultimately agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation.

Accordingly, and the Court being sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram's Report and Recommendation [R. 50] is ADOPTED and for the Opinion of the Court;

2. Defendants' Second Motion for Summary Judgment [R. 46] is GRANTED;

3. JUDGMENT in favor of the Defendants will be entered contemporaneously herewith.