ORDER and DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

NEIL V. WAKE, Senior District Judge.

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade (Doc. 16) regarding petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The R&R recommends that the Petition be denied. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 21 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72). Petitioner filed objections dated January 17, 2019 (Doc. 17).

The Court has considered the objections and reviewed the Report and Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's determinations, accepts the recommended decision within the meaning of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Petitioner's objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate").

Petitioner's Motion for Evidentiary Hearing says only, "Should the court have any question on these matters, the Petitioner would request an evidentiary hearing." (Doc. 18 at 4). Petitioner does not state any basis for an evidentiary hearing, what facts would be resolved at such hearing, or why such a hearing is not barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc.16) is accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. 18) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The Clerk shall terminate this action.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a request for a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma puaperis on appeal is denied because appellant has not shown that "jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S.Ct. 641, 648 (2012); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003).