Opinion & Order

THOMAS B. RUSSELL, Senior District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court upon Movant Bruce Rogers' pro se Motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, [DN 42], and the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in which he recommends that the Motion be denied. [DN 82.] Movant filed no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.

In general, courts must make de novo determinations concerning any portions of a Report and Recommendation to which objections are filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, in the case where no objections are lodged with respect to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, courts need not "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). Moreover, a party that fails to lodge an objection to the Report and Recommendation is barred from appealing a district court's order adopting the Report and Recommendation. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

Here, the Court has conducted an examination of the relevant filings and the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and has concluded that the Magistrate Judge's analysis is sound. Thus, the Court being sufficiently advised on the matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court ADOPTS the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation as set forth in the report submitted by the United States Magistrate Judge. [DN 82.]

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Movant's Motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, [DN 42], is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED as to each claim asserted in Movant's Motion.

A separate Judgment shall issue contemporaneously to this Opinion & Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.