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

Alexander Bernard Wilson, Jr., C/A No. 5:20-02145-JFA-KDW Petitioner, vs.

Warden of Kirkland, ORDER

Respondent.

Alexander Bernard Wilson, Jr. (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.), the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”) and opines that this Court should dismiss the petition without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 18). 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. The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See

(b)(1).

1 The Magistrate Judge’s review is made in accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (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,

(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 recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See

(b). Petitioner was advised of his right to object to the Report which was entered on the docket on June 29, 2020. The Magistrate Judge required Petitioner to file his objections by July 13, 2020. However, Petitioner did not file any objections. In the absence of specific objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby vy. Davis,

(4th Cir. 1983). After 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 and Recommendation (ECF No. 18). Thus, Petitioner’s petition (ECF No. 1) is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED. peopl 5 Conus August 5, 2020 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Jud