ORDER

GREGORY F. VAN TATENHOVE, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram. [R. 162.] The Report and Recommendation addresses the issue of whether Defendant Kenneth Charles Ball is competent to face further supervised release revocation proceedings pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241 and §4247(d).

After reviewing the forensic report of the Defendant's psychiatric evaluation by Dr. Lesli Johnson, Ph.D., and conducting a competency hearing, Magistrate Judge Ingram concluded that "per 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a), Defendant is able to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him and to assist properly in his own defense". [R. 162 at 5.] Defense Counsel stipulated to the admission of the report and also to the findings contained therein. [R. 162 at 3.] The Magistrate Judge found that Defendant Ball "is competent to face further proceedings, to include supervised release revocation proceedings, in this matter." [Id. at 5.] Judge Ingram's Report advises the parties that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 59(b), any objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. [Id.] The time to file objections has passed, and neither party has objected nor sought an extension of time to do so.

Generally, this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). When no objections are made, this Court is not required to "review . . . a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard . . . ." See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151 (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 agrees with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.

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

(1) The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [R. 162] is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court; and

(2) The Court FINDS that Ball is competent to face further proceedings in this matter including supervised release revocation proceedings; and

(3) Consistent with the Court's prior ruling [R. 146], this matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram for further supervised release revocation proceedings.