MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHARLES R. SIMPSON, III, Senior District Judge.

This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge who issued Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation (DN 448)(the "report") concerning petitioner Monika Juanita Smith's petition for post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. §2255. The magistrate judge recommended that her petition be denied. There have been no objections filed to the report.

Smith was indicted for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of 500 grams or more of cocaine. Smith pled guilty under a plea agreement in which she waived her right to directly appeal or collaterally attack her conviction and the resulting sentence. She was sentenced to 48 months imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release.

In a detailed fourteen-page report addressing each of Smith's claims, the magistrate judge correctly found that all claims raised were waived by the plea agreement with the exception of Ground 6. The magistrate judge found that Smith's waiver of her right to collaterally attack her conviction and sentence was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and Smith did not argue otherwise. Additionally, the report sets forth numerous factual deficiencies in the claims where the petitioner purports to raise legal claims but fails to particularize these conclusory allegations to evidence any applicability in her case.

In Ground 6, Smith urges that her counsel was ineffective because the sentence she received "differed from that of the advisement of [her] attorney" and that she pled guilty "in fear of receiving more time[.]" DN 448, p. 7 (citing DN 406-1, at p. 5). The magistrate judge found that Smith failed to establish deficient performance by her counsel or resulting prejudice, both of which are required to be proven to establish ineffective assistance of counsel. Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111, 122, 129 S.Ct. 1411, 173 L.Ed.2d 251 (2009); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). The magistrate judge found that Smith did not explain how counsel misadvised her nor how her sentence differed from what she had expected. DN 448, p. 8.

We conclude that the magistrate judge carefully reviewed the facts and Smith's challenges, and correctly applied the law to the facts herein. We therefore will accept and adopt the magistrate judge's report in its entirety and will dismiss the petition with prejudice. A separate order will be entered herein this date in accordance with this opinion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.