IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Maynard Akeem Sanders, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 5:21-225-BHH v. ) ) Bureau of Prisons, ) ORDER ) Defendant. ) ________________________________) This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff Maynard Akeem Sanders’ (“Plaintiff”) complaint filed pursuant to

in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. In accordance with

(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary determinations. On February 9, 2021, Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West issued a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) outlining the history of this action and recommending that the Court summarily dismiss this action without issuance and service of process as the court does not have jurisdiction to grant Plaintiff relief. Plaintiff is seeking a reduction in sentence or compassionate release, and is required to file an action in the district court where he was sentenced. Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date, no objections have been filed. The 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,

(1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination only 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.

(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005) (stating that “in the absence of a

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.’” (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note)). Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts and specifically incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 22), and the Court summarily dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint without

issuance and service of process for the reasons set forth in the Report. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge March 3, 2021 Charleston, South Carolina

2