ORDER

DAVID S. DOTY, District Judge.

This matter is before the court upon the objection1 by pro se petitioner Eric Vandell Taylor to the April 24, 2013, report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham. Based on a de novo review of the file, record and proceedings herein, and for the following reasons, the court overrules the objection and adopts the report and recommendation in its entirety.

BACKGROUND

The background of this action is fully set forth in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, and the court summarizes only those facts necessary to resolve Taylor's objection. On August 20, 2009, Taylor was arrested and charged with two counts of criminal sexual conduct, in violation of Minnesota Statutes § 609.342, subdivision 1(b), 1(g). State v. Taylor, No. A10-1940, 2012 WL 1149323, at *1 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2012). Taylor demanded a speedy trial on September 9, 2009. Id. at *2.

The trial was twice postponed. The first delay resulted from a backlog at the DNA analysis laboratory. Id. The second delay occurred when a state witness was out of the country and unavailable to testify. Id. During the delay and prior to trial, the victim made additional allegations against Taylor. Id. On May 21, 2010, the criminal complaint was amended to include additional incidences of sexual assault. Id.

On May 24, 2010, Taylor was tried and convicted of one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and sentenced to 360 months in prison. Id. Taylor appealed, arguing in part that the conviction should be overturned based on his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction on April 9, 2012. Id. at *6. The Minnesota Supreme Court denied review on June 27, 2012.

On August 16, 2012, Taylor filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.2 ECF No. 1.

DISCUSSION

The court reviews the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). Taylor raises no new arguments in his objection. Rather, Taylor argues that the magistrate judge incorrectly balanced the factors set forth in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972).3

In analyzing a speedy trial claim under Barker, the court balances the "[l]ength of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant." Id. at 530. After a de novo review of the record and the report and recommendation, the court finds that the report of the magistrate judge correctly resolves the issue of Taylor's speedy trial claim. Therefore, the objection is overruled.

Further, the court determines that Taylor has not made a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). As a result, the court does not grant a certificate of appealability.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's motion to amend the pleadings [ECF No. 10] is granted;

2. Petitioner's motion to alter or amend the judgment [ECF No. 13] is construed as an objection to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and is overruled;

3. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation [ECF No. 12] is adopted in full;

4. Petitioner's motion to expand the record [ECF No. 14] is denied as moot; and

5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, the court denies a certificate of appealability.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.