United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division
BRYAN HARWELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Don-Survi Chisolm, a state prisoner proceeding pro se,
initiated this action by filing a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See
ECF No. 1. Respondent answered and filed a motion for summary
judgment. See ECF Nos. 17 & 18. The Magistrate
Judge issued an order directing Petitioner to respond to the
motion, see ECF No. 19, but Petitioner failed to
file a response in opposition. The matter is now before the
Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“R
& R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E.
Rogers, III, made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.).
See ECF No. 23. The Magistrate Judge recommends that
the Court dismiss Petitioner's § 2254 petition with
prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 41(b), or alternatively, grant
Respondent's motion for summary judgment and dismiss
Petitioner's habeas petition without an evidentiary
hearing. Id. at p. 14.
Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court.
The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and 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 R & R 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); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
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
district court must issue or deny a certificate of
appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the
applicant.” Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases. 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).
When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
petitioner 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 Miller-El
v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the
district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states
a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. In this case, the Court
concludes that Petitioner has failed to make the requisite
showing of “the denial of a constitutional
thorough review of the record in this case, the Court finds
no clear error. Accordingly, the Court
ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R & R
[ECF No. 23], GRANTS Respondent's motion
for summary judgment [ECF No. 18], and DENIES AND
DISMISSES Petitioner's § 2254 petition
with prejudice. The Court DENIES a
certificate of appealability because Petitioner has not made
“a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right” under 28 U.S.C. §
IS SO ORDERED.
 Respondent's objections were due
by March 21, 2018, and Petitioner's objections were due
by March 26, 2018. See ECF Nos. 23 & 24.
 The Court also agrees with the
Magistrate Judge's alternative recommendation that this
action should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to
prosecute pursuant to Rule ...