Joseph M. Hood Senior U.S. District Judge
ORDER
***
This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Candace J. Smith [DE 59], wherein she recommends that Defendant-Petitioner Alexander Cruz-Dominguez's Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [DEs 55, 58] be denied. Magistrate Judge Smith thoroughly examined the record and found that Cruz Dominguez's two grounds for claiming ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit. Additionally, Magistrate Judge Smith found that Cruz Dominguez's claims were procedurally defaulted and waived. [Id. at 4-7].
Generally, a judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636. However, when the petitioner fails to file any objections to the Report and Recommendation, as in the case sub judice, "[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." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Cruz-Dominguez's deadline to file objections has long passed without any filings in the record. Moreover, the Court has made repeated attempts to send Cruz-Dominguez a copy of the Report & Recommendation [DE 59] to no avail. [See DEs 60, 62, and Clerk's Note on April 26, 2021]. Pursuant to Local Rule 5.3(e), pro se litigants are required to keep the Clerk updated to any changes in address, and failure to do so may result in dismissal of an action. Consequently, and in the absence of any objections, this Court adopts the well-articulated and detailed reasoning set forth in the Report and Recommendation as its own.
Finally, Magistrate Judge Smith recommends that no certificate of appealability should issue in this matter with respect to those claims raised under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. "A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). In order for a certificate to issue, Cruz-Dominguez must be able to show that reasonable jurists could find in his favor, and the "question is the debatability of the underlying federal constitutional claim, not the resolution of that debate." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 342 (2003). Again, in the absence of objections from Cruz-Dominguez, the undersigned adopts the Report and Recommendation on this issue, and concludes that no certificate should issue as Cruz-Dominguez cannot make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
(1) United States Magistrate Judge Candace J. Smith's Report and Recommendation [DE 59] is hereby ADOPTED IN FULL as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Court;
(2) Defendant-Petitioner Alexander Cruz-Dominguez's Motion to Vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [DE 55] is hereby DENIED; and
(3) Defendant-Petitioner Alexander Cruz-Dominguez's construed request to amend his Motion to Vacate [DE 58] is DENIED
This the 1st day of June, 2021.
Signed By:
Joseph M . Hood
Senior U.S. District Judge