United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Rock Hill Division
Bryan Harwell, United States District Judge.
Jose Carlos Salazar, proceeding pro se, filed this action
seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241. See ECF Nos. 1 & 4. Respondent has filed a
motion for summary judgment. See ECF No. 19. The
matter is before the Court for review of the Report and
Recommendation (“R & R”) of United States
Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett. See ECF No. 27. The
Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss this
action with prejudice for lack of prosecution. R & R at
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the
responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71
(1976). The Court must conduct a de novo review of those
portions of the R & R to which specific objections are
made, and it may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit
the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
party has filed objections to the R & R, and the time for
doing so has expired. In the absence of objections to the R
& R, the Court is not required to give any explanation
for adopting the Magistrate Judge's 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 & Acc.
Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (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
a certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Fourth Circuit
has held that a district court's order denying relief on
a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. See, e.g., Garvin
v. Wright, 583 F. App'x 287 (4th Cir. 2014) (citing
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)). When the district court
denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this
standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find
that the court's assessment of the constitutional claims
is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000); see also Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies
relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate
(1) the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and (2)
the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a
constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
Here, the Court concludes that Petitioner has failed to make
the requisite showing of “the denial of a
thoroughly reviewed the record in this case, the Court finds
no clear error and therefore adopts and incorporates by
reference the Magistrate Judge's R & R [ECF No.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES AND DISMISSES
this action with prejudice for lack of
prosecution. The Court DENIES a
certificate of appealability because Petitioner has failed to
make “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
Respondent's motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 19] is
IS SO ORDERED.
 This matter was referred to the
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.).
 Petitioner's objections to the R
& R were due by March 9, 2018. See ECF Nos. 27
& 28. On March 2, 2018, the envelope containing the R
& R was returned as undeliverable. See ECF No.
29-1. Significantly, the online records of the Federal Bureau
of Prisons (“BOP”) indicate Petitioner was
released on January 26, 2018. See BOP Inmate
(accessed on March 14, 2018) (search for Petitioner's
inmate number “48764-177”); see, e.g.,
United States v. Hardy, 545 F.3d 280, 283 (4th Cir.
2008) (citing the BOP Inmate Locator). Petitioner was also
sentenced to two years of supervised release upon release
from imprisonment, see ECF No. 19 at p. 2;
United States v. Jose Carlos Salazar, Crim. No.
3:14-cr-00411-D, at ECF No. 26 (N.D. Tex.) (Petitioner's
criminal judgment), and therefore his § 2241 petition
does not appear to be moot.
 The R & R mistakenly states
Petitioner filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254, see R & R at p. 1, but he (a federal
prisoner at the time of filing) actually filed it pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. See ECF No. 1. The Court