United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
matter is before the court on review of the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation (“Report”)
(ECF No. 24), filed on November 27, 2017, recommending that
Petitioner's action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute.
Magistrate Judge's Report is made in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c)
for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge
makes only a recommendation to this court, which 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 to which specific objections are made.
parties were advised of their right to file objections to the
Report. (ECF No. 24-1). Petitioner filed a letter (ECF No.
26) with the court, but it did not address the
absence of objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report,
this court is not required to provide an explanation for
adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718
F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “in the absence
of a timely filed objection, a district court need not
conduct a 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.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life
& Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th
Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory
committee's note). Furthermore, failure to file specific
written objections to the Report results in a party's
waiver of the right to appeal from the judgment of the
District Court based upon such recommendation. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); see Wells v. Shriners Hosp., 109
F.3d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1997) (“[t]he Supreme Court has
authorized the waiver rule that we enforce. . . . ‘[A]
court of appeals may adopt a rule conditioning appeal, when
taken from a district court judgment that adopts a
magistrate's recommendation, upon the filing of
objections with the district court identifying those issues
on which further review is desired.'”) (citing
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985)).
thorough review of the Report and the record in this case,
the court finds the Report provides an accurate summary of
the facts and law. Petitioner did not respond to the
Magistrate Judge's Order (ECF No. 21) directing him to
respond to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 20). For this reason, the court
ACCEPTS the Report (ECF No. 24),
DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE Petitioner's
Petition (ECF No. 1) pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for
failure to prosecute. Therefore, Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 20) is MOOT.
governing certificates of appealability provides that:
(c)(2) A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if
the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right.
(c)(3) The certificate of appealability . . . shall indicate
which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required
by paragraph (2).
U.S.C. § 2253(c). A prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable judges would find this
court's assessment of his constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling
by the district court is likewise debatable. See, e.g.,
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). In
this case, the legal standard for the issuance of a
certificate of appealability has not been met.
IS SO ORDERED.
 Petitioner's letter was stylized
as an Objection, but instead it is a request for “any
and all papers that [he] may have been absent in filing, as
[he[ may not have been aware[.]” (ECF No. 26 at 2.)
Petitioner also states that he ...