IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION

James L. Wright, ) Case No.: 8:21-cv-0388-JD ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) OPINION & ORDER Warden of Edgefield FCI, ) ) Respondent. ) )

This matter is before the Court with the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Jacquelyn D. Austin (“Report and Recommendation”), made in accordance with

(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) of the District of South Carolina.1 Petitioner, James L. Wright (“Wright” or “Petitioner”), a federal prisoner brought this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus without the aid of counsel under

. (DE 1.) The Report and Recommendation was filed on March 31, 2021, recommending the Petition be summarily dismissed because Petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies. (DE 11.) The Petitioner filed no objections to the Report and Recommendation. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis,

(4th Cir. 1983). The Court must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept

1 The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the United States District Court. See Mathews v. Weber,

, 270- 71 (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. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the magistrate judge or recommit the matter with instructions.

(b)(1). the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005). After a thorough review of the Report and Recommendation and the record in this case, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein. It is, therefore, ORDERED that the petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied, and the petition is dismissed without prejudice and without requiring the Respondent to fail an answer or return. Further, it is ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied because Defendant has failed to make “‘a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2). IT IS SO ORDERED.

© SOV Josaph Dawson, II United States District Judge Greenville, South Carolina June 2, 2021

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Petitioner is hereby notified that he has the right to appeal this order within sixty (60) days

from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.