United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division
Javon Brown, # 272674, a/k/a Jovan T. Brown, a/k/a Jovon Brown, Petitioner,
Joseph McFadden, Warden, Respondent.
R. BRYAN HARWELL, District Judge.
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, initiated this suit by filing a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on April 11, 2014. See Petition, ECF No. 1. On January 26, 2015, Petitioner filed a motion for default judgment. See Pl.'s Mot., ECF No. 32. Defendant timely filed a response in opposition on February 12, 2015. See Def.'s Resp., ECF No. 34. The matter is now before the court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("R & R") of United States Magistrate Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin. See R & R, ECF No. 39. In her R & R, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny Petitioner's motion for default judgment. See id. at 1-2.
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with this Court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendations. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). The Court reviews only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that "in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation'") (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
After a thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted and incorporated by reference. Therefore, it is ...