DANNY REEVES, District Judge
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Defendant Lee Murray Miller's motion to suppress certain evidence seized during a search occurring December 18, 2006. [Record No. 17] United States Magistrate Judge Robert E. Wier conducted an evidentiary hearing on this motion on March 8, 2007. On March 22, 2007, Magistrate Judge Wier issued a report and recommendation concerning the motion to suppress. [Record No. 23] By agreement, the parties were given until March 29, 2007, to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommended disposition. However, as of this date, no objections have been filed.
Although this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Magistrate Judge's proposed findings of fact and recommendations to which objection is made, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), "[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, when neither party objects to those findings." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Moreover, a party who fails to file objections with the Court to a Magistrate Judge's proposed findings of fact and recommendation waives the right to appeal. See Wright v. Holbrook, 794 F.2d 1152, 1154-55 (6th Cir. 1986). And while Defendant Miller has waived any objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendations, the undersigned has conducted a de novo review of the pleadings and transcript of the March 8, 2007, hearing in reaching the conclusions outlined below.
Having reviewed materials relevant to the pending motion, the Court will adopt the findings contained in the report (Record No. 23, pp. 1-11), as well as the recommendation concerning the issue of actual consent (Record No. 23, pp. 11-16). More specifically, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's analysis that, under the facts presented, clear and positive evidence supports the conclusion that Defendant Miller consented to the search of the subject vehicle on December 18, 2006. And having reached this determination, the undersigned finds it unnecessary to address the issues of implied consent, common authority or inevitable discovery which are also addressed — but are rendered moot — by the Magistrate Judge's recommended disposition.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
(1) Pages 1 through 16 (excluding the discussion of "Implied Consent") of the Magistrate Judge's Recommended Disposition of Motion to Suppress [Record No. 23] are ADOPTED and INCORPORATED herein by reference. The Court also ADOPTS and INCORPORATES the Magistrate Judge's conclusion.
(2) The Defendant's motion to suppress [Record No. 17] is DENIED.