IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION

Terrell Devon Freeman, ) Case No. 4:19-cv-03088-DCC ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Warden FCI Bennettsville, ) ) Respondent. ) ________________________________ )

Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, is seeking habeas corpus relief pursuant to

. In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On January 27, 2020, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 16. The Magistrate Judge issued an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison,

(4th Cir. 1975), advising Petitioner of the summary judgment/dismissal procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately. ECF No. 19. Despite this explanation, Petitioner has not responded to the motion. On March 9, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). ECF No. 22. The Magistrate Judge advised Petitioner of the procedures and requirements for filing 1 objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Petitioner has filed no objections, and the time to do so has passed. 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. See Mathews v. Weber,

(1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or

recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See

(b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of 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.” (citation omitted)).

After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Report’s recommendation; accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge 2 May 6, 2020 Spartanburg, South Carolina NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

3