MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JOSEPH M. HOOD, Senior District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Candace J. Smith. [DE 472]. This action was referred to the magistrate for the purpose of reviewing the merit of Petitioner Ramiro Ozuna-Guerrero's Motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody. [DE 470]. Magistrate Judge Smith recommended that Ozuna-Guerrero's Motion be denied. [DE 472]. Specifically, Judge Smith thoroughly examined the record and found that Ozuna-Guerrero's claims are barred by the statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (f). [DE 472, p. 5]. In addition, Judge Smith found that even if Petitioner's claims were not time barred, they lack merit. [Id., p 11]. Further, Judge Smith recommended that Ozuna-Guerrero's requests for appointment of counsel and certificate of appealability be denied. [Id., p. 23].

The magistrate judge advised Ozuna-Guerrero that he had fourteen days to file particularized objections to the Report and Recommendation or further appeal would be waived. [Id.]. Nearly a month later, Ozuna-Guerrero filed a letter with the Court styled as an objection. [DE 473]. However, in the letter, Ozuna-Guerrero made no specific objections but asserted that he needed more time to respond to the Report and Recommendation because the Great Plains Correctional Facility was on lockdown in early July. [Id.]. The Court granted Ozuna-Guerrero's request in a July 28, 2017 Order and allowed him 60 additional days to file written objections to Judge Smith's findings. [DE 474]. Since then, Ozuna-Guerrero has not filed any written objections. More than 60 days have passed since the Court's July 28, 2017 Order, and the Court has received nothing from Ozuna-Guerrero.

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 Ozuna-Guerrero, this Court adopts the well-articulated and detailed reasoning set forth in the Report and Recommendation as its own.

Finally, Judge Smith recommended that no certificate of appealability should issue in this matter with respect to those claims raised under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. "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). Again, in the absence of objections from Ozuna-Guerrero, the undersigned adopts the Report and Recommendation on this issue, and concludes that no certificate should issue as Ozuna-Guerrero cannot make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows: