ORDER

MARY S. SCRIVEN, District Judge.

This Cause is before the Court for consideration of Defendant Kenneth James' Motion for leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis and United States Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo's Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Defendant's Motion be denied. (Dkts. 119 & 120)

In the Eleventh Circuit, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Williams v. Wainwright, 681F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). A district judge "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This requires that the district judge "give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party." Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir.1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong. § 2 (1976)). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).

In his motion, Defendant seeks in forma pauperis status to appeal this Court's decision denying the Defendants Motion for Retroactive Application of Sentencing Guidelines pursuant to Amendment 782 and Title 18 U.S.C. Section 3582. In his recommendation, Judge Pizzo finds that the Defendant's appeal is frivolous and thus the Defendant's Motion for in forma pauperis should be denied and a certification be made that the appeal was not taken in good faith. The Court will note that the Defendant had fourteen (14) days to file an objection to the Report and Recommendation, and as of the date of this Order, none has been filed.

A review of the case docket reveals that on March 1, 2017, this Court denied the Defendant's Motion for Retroactive Application of Sentencing Guidelines pursuant to Amendment 782 and Title 18 U.S.C. Section 3582. At the time of sentencing, the Defendant was held accountable for 536.9 kilograms of cocaine and, as a result, the amendment does not lower the Defendant's base offense level, rendering the Defendant ineligible to receive a benefit under the amendment. See USSG §1B1.10 (a)(2)(B) This Court has no authority to modify the Defendant's sentence; therefore, the Defendant's appeal does not meet the "good faith" requirement. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) and Rule 24(a)(4)(B), Fed. R. App. P.

Upon review of the foregoing, is it ORDERED as follows:

DONE and ORDERED.