MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

JOSEPH M. HOOD, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation entered by Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins [DE 36]. Said action was referred to the magistrate for the purpose of reviewing the merit of Defendant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct His Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [DE 31], to which the United States filed a Response, stating its objections thereto [DE 33]. Defendant filed a Reply in further support of his Motion [DE 35]. No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed, and this matter is now ripe for a decision.

In his Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Defendant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be denied. Generally, "a judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636. However, when the petitioner fails to file any objections to the Report and Recommendation, as in the case sub judice, "[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Consequently and in the absence of any objections from Defendant Campbell, this Court adopts the reasoning set forth in the Report and Recommendation as to Campbell's § 2255 Motion as its own.

Finally, the Court considers whether a certificate of appealability should issue in this matter. "A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). In order for a certificate to issue, Defendant must be able to show that reasonable jurists could find in his favor, and the "question is the debatability of the underlying federal constitutional claim, not the resolution of that debate." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 342 (2003). Having carefully considered the matter, this Court concludes that no certificate should issue as Campbell cannot make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

(1) that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [DE 36] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED; and

(2) that Defendant's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct His Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [DE 31] is DENIED.

(3) that no certificate of appealability will issue.