United States District Court, D. South Carolina
JOSEPH F. ANDERSON, Jr., District Judge.
The pro se plaintiff, William Lee Jones, is an inmate with the Federal Penitentiary in Atwater, California. He brings this action contending that after he was sentenced in the District of South Carolina,  his attorney informed him that he had been incorrectly sentenced as an armed career criminal. He argues that the defendants should have known that his sentence was improper.
The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action has prepared a Report and Recommendation and opines that the court should summarily dismiss this action without prejudice. The Report sets forth in detail the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and the court incorporates such without a recitation and without a hearing.
The plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and Recommendation, which was entered on the docket on August 13, 2014. The plaintiff has not filed objections and the time within which to do so has expired. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
The Magistrate Judge has evaluated the plaintiff's complaint under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 397 (1971). The Magistrate Judge correctly notes that defendant Rogers does not act under color of state law and is not amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; that defendant Hayes [Haynes] has absolute immunity and any claims against her are barred by prosecutorial immunity; and that defendant Judge Currie has absolute judicial immunity from a claim for damages arising out of her judicial actions.
After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation, the court finds that the Magistrate Judge's recommendation is proper and incorporates it herein by reference. Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied because the petitioner has failed to make "a substantial showing of the denial of a ...