OPINION AND ORDER

THOMAS B. RUSSELL, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court upon Movant Quanetta Moore's pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Docket No. 32.) In response, the Government asked the Court to reconsider its order directing the Government to respond to the merits of Moore's Motion to Vacate, (Docket No. 266). The Government contends that Moore's motion to vacate is time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations established by 28 U.S.C. §2255(f). (Docket No. 269.) In his Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge agreed with the Government and recommended that Moore's Motion be denied. (Docket No. 272.) Moore filed no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.

Generally, the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of a recommended disposition to which objections are filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). However, when no objections are entered, the Court need not "review . . . a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard. . . ." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Furthermore, parties who fail to object to a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation are barred from appealing a district court's order adopting that report and recommendation. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

These principles notwithstanding, the Court has examined the record and the Magistrate Judge's recommended disposition and agrees that the Magistrate Judge's analysis is sound. Therefore, the Court being sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

This is a final judgment, and the matter is hereby stricken from the active docket of the Court.