GREGORY TATENHOVE, District Judge
This matter is before the Court upon the Recommended Disposition [R. 75] filed by Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram. Therein, Judge Ingram recommends that the Court deny the Defendant's Motion to Vacate his sentence [R. 73] as well as his Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [R. 74]. Judge Ingram further advised the parties that any objections to the Recommended Disposition must be filed within fourteen (14) days of service. As of this date, neither party has filed objections nor sought an extension of time to do so.
In his current motion, Rhodes seeks to vacate his sentence based on ineffective assistance of counsel and actual innocence as to one of the counts of conviction. However, Judge Ingram correctly observes that Rhodes appealed the denial of his suppression motion to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and that his appeal is still pending before that court. And the pendency of a direct appeal generally precludes a district court from considering a § 2255 application for relief "in the absence of extraordinary circumstances." Capaldi v. Pontesso, 135 F.3d 1122, 1124 (6th Cir. 1998). Based on that general rule, and his conclusion that Rhodes has not demonstrated the existence of extraordinary circumstances, Judge Ingram recommends that Rhodes's § 2255 motion be dismissed.
The Defendant's plea agreement [R. 58] specifically reserved his right to appeal this Court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence from the search of his residence.
Generally, this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c). When no objections are made, this Court is not required to "review . . . a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard. . . ." See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151 (1985). Parties who fail to object to a magistrate's report and recommendation are also barred from appealing a district court's order adopting that report and recommendation. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). Nevertheless, this Court has examined the record, and it agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation.
Accordingly, and the Court being sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [R. 75] is ADOPTED as and for the opinion of the Court;
2. The Defendant's Motion to Vacate [R. 73] is DISMISSED without prejudice; and,
3. The Defendant's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [R. 74] is DENIED without prejudice.
This the 30th day of December, 2010.