United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Aiken Division
BRYAN HARWELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Francillion Debreus, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se,
has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. See ECF No. 1. The matter is
before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation
(“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge
Shiva V. Hodges,  who recommends dismissing this action for
failure to prosecute. See ECF No. 8.
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);
has not 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 Fed.Appx. 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
thorough review of 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. 8].
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action
without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 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).
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.).
 The R & R does not indicate
whether the dismissal should be with or without prejudice.
The Court in its discretion will dismiss this action
 Petitioner's objections were due
by January 14, 2019. See ECF Nos. 8 & 9. The
Court's mailings to Petitioner have been returned by the
USPS and marked “RETURN TO SENDER[, ] REFUSED[, ]
UNABLE TO ...