ORDER

GREGORY F. VAN TATENHOVE, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Recommended Disposition (also known as a Report and Recommendation) [R. 10] filed by United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram. The Defendant, Jamie L. Lebel, violated the terms of his supervised release by, first, committing another federal, state or local crime when he was pulled over for speeding and operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol. [R. 10 at 2.] Second, because he was found to be using alcohol in excess, he was also in violation of Standard Condition #7. [R. 10 at 2.] Upon notification of the violations, the United States Probation Office issued a violations report and, in response, the Court issued an arrest warrant [R. 4] and then referred this matter to Judge Ingram to conduct a final revocation hearing and recommend a proposed disposition of the matter. [R. 6.]

On June 18, 2014, Judge Ingram conducted a final hearing and Lebel stipulated to the charged violations. [R. 10 at 3.] On June 23, Judge Ingram issued a Report and Recommendation which recommended that Lebel's supervised release be revoked and that he be imprisoned for six months with a five year term of supervision to follow. [R. 10 at 7.] Judge Ingram appropriately considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3353 factors in coming to his recommended sentence. [R. 10 at 4-8.] The Recommended Disposition advises the parties' that objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. [R. 10 at 8.] See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). There were no objections filed during the relevant time period and Lebel waived his right of allocution. [R. 12.]

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). Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record, and it agrees with the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Disposition.

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

(1) The Recommended Disposition [R. 10] as to Jamie Lebel is ADOPTED as and for the Opinion of the Court;

(2) The Defendant, Jamie Lebel is found to have violated the terms of his Supervised Release as set forth in the Petition filed by the U.S. Probation Office [R. 3];

(3) Lebel Supervised Release is REVOKED;

(4) Lebel is SENTENCED to the Custody of the Bureau of Prisons for a term of imprisonment of six (6) months;

(5) Five (5) years of supervised release is IMPOSED following Lebels term of incarceration;

(6) Lebel has WAIVED his right to allocution [R. 12]; and

(7) Judgment shall be entered promptly.