ORDER

DONALD L. GRAHAM, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Petitioner Valdes's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody [D.E. 1].

THE COURT has conducted an independent review of the record, the Report and Recommendation, the Objections to the Report and Recommendation, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.

THIS MATTER was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Magistrate Rules of the Southern District of Florida. On January 6, 2016, Magistrate Judge White issued a Report and Recommendation [D.E. 14] for this Court's consideration. It recommended that Petitioner's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody be DENIED, that any request for an EVIDENTIARY HEARING BE DENIED, that NO CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY BE ISSUED, and that the CASE BE CLOSED. After being granted two time extensions to file objections to the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner filed his Objections to Report of Magistrate Judge **Amended** ("Objections") [D.E. 20].

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Magistrate Rules of the Southern District of Florida, the Parties have fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation to serve and file written objections, if any, with the District Court. Failure to file timely objections shall bar the Parties from a de novo determination by the District Court of issues covered in the Report and Recommendation and bar the Parties from attacking on appeal the factual findings contained therein. LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749-50 (11th Cir. 1988), cert, denied, 488 U.S. 958 (1988).

PARTIES' OBJECTIONS AND THIS COURT'S RULING

Here, Petitioner timely filed his Objections to the Report and Recommendation. Therein, Petitioner's objections focus on the alleged ineffective assistance of his counsel. Specifically, Petitioner objects to the following: (1) trial counsel failed to present an insanity or diminished capacity defense at trial and present witnesses to support these defenses; (2) trial counsel failed to object to the § 851 enhancement based on a prior state court felony drug conviction; (3) trial counsel failed to present an entrapment defense; (4) trial counsel illicitly labored under a conflict of interest; and (5) trial counsel failed to properly represent him during the plea bargaining process. Petitioner further objects to the Report and Recommendation's recommendation that a certificate of appealability not be issued in this case and, pursuant to Clisby v. Jones, 960 F,2d 925, 935-38 (11th Cir. 1992), that Magistrate Judge White allegedly did not address Petitioner's additional claims or sub-claims.1

After a careful review of Petitioner's Objections, the Court finds them meritless. Magistrate Judge White conducted an exhaustive review of the record underlying this cause and made findings consistent with the law. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report and Recommendation [D.E. 14] is AFFIRMED, ADOPTED, AND RATIFIED in its entirety and is incorporated herein by reference. It is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner Valdes's Motion Under 28 U.S. C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody [D.E. 1] is DENIED, Petitioner Valdes's request for an EVIDENTIARY HEARING IS DENIED, and that NO CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY BE ISSUED. Lastly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case. All other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

DONE AND ORDERED.