IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Conrad Antonio Allen, C/A No. 5:21-cv-2591-JFA-KDW

Petitioner,

vs. ORDER Warden of Broad River Correctional Institution Respondent.

The pro se petitioner, Conrad Antonio Allen (“Petitioner”), brought this action pursuant to

for habeas relief. In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.), the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge. After reviewing Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 22) and all responsive briefing, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this action1 prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”), which opines that summary judgment should be granted and that the petition should be denied. (ECF No. 26). 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 recitation. Petitioner was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on April 29, 2022.

The Magistrate Judge required Petitioner to file objections

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

(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (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). by May 13, 2022. /d. Petitioner failed to file objections or otherwise respond to the Report. Thus, this matter is ripe for review. A district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection is made. See

(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole,

(4th Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate’s Report, this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis,

(4th Cir. 1983). Here, Plaintiff has failed to raise any objections and therefore this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. A review of the Report and prior filings indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that the Respondent’s motion for summary judgment should be granted. After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in the case, and the Report, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. (ECF No. 26). Consequently, the motion for summary judgment (ECF No 22) is granted and the petition is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Opeueh 4 7 ; □ May 24, 2022 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge