United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division
F. ANDERSON, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Earl Dillard (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner
proceeding pro se,  filed a petition for habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”).
(ECF No. 1). Thereafter, Petitioner filed a motion to amend
his Petition. (ECF No. 4). In accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.),
this case was referred to a Magistrate Judge for Review. (ECF
No. 5 at 1). The Magistrate Judge assigned to this
action prepared a thorough Report and
Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that the
Petition should be dismissed without prejudice, that
Petitioner's motion to amend his Petition should be
denied as moot, and that this Court should deny a certificate
of appealability. (ECF No. 7 at 4). The Report sets forth, in
detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this
matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards
without a recitation. (ECF No. 7). The Magistrate Judge
required Petitioner to file objections by February 27, 2019
(ECF No. 7 at 5) and Petitioner failed to do so.
Petitioner filed several Notices of Appeal regarding the
Magistrate Judge's Report. (ECF Nos. 11 and 12).
Thereafter, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit dismissed Petitioner's appeal for lack of
jurisdiction because the district court had not yet
“entered a final order or an appealable interlocutory
or collateral order . . . .” (ECF No. 20 at 2). The
mandate for that decision was filed July 10, 2019. (ECF No.
21). Accordingly, this matter is ripe for review.
district court is required to conduct only a de novo review
of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge's report
to which an objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W.Va. Bd. of
Prob. & Parole, 974 F.2d 1330 (4th Cir. 1992). Thus,
the Court must only review those portions of the Report to
which Petitioner has made a specific written objection.
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416
F.3d 310, 316 (4th Cir. 2005). In the absence of specific
objections to portions of the Magistrate Judge's Report,
this Court is not required to give an explanation for
adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718
F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).
Petitioner did not timely file objections to the Report. The
Magistrate Judge allowed Petitioner ample time to respond to
the Report and Petitioner failed to do so. Without specific
objections to the Report, this Court may adopt the Report
carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this
case, as well as the Report, this Court finds the Magistrate
Judge's recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes
the facts and applies the correct principles of law.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report (ECF No. 7).
Consequently, Petitioner's Petition (ECF No. 1) is
dismissed without prejudice, Petitioner's motion to amend
his Petition (ECF No. 4) is denied as moot, and a certificate
of appealability is denied because Petitioner has failed to
make “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right” as required by 28 U.S.C. §
 “Pro se complaints and
pleadings, however inartfully pleaded, must be liberally
construed and held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Ally v. Yadkin Cty.
Sheriff Dept., 698 Fed.Appx. 141, 142 (4th Cir. 2017)
(citing Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
 The Magistrate Judge's review is
made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). The 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 the Court. Mathews v.
Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (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 ...