IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Paul H. Paprzycki, Jr., ) C/A No.: 5:22-609-SAL ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) Warden of Greenville County Detention ) ORDER Center, ) ) Respondent. ) )

This matter is before the court for review of the March 24, 2022 Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) of United States Magistrate Judge Kaymani D. West made in accordance with

(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.). [ECF No. 17.] In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing Petitioner’s

petition without prejudice due to the ongoing state criminal proceedings against him.

. Attached to the Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so.

. Plaintiff has not filed objections, and the time for doing so has expired. 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 this court. See Mathews v. Weber,

(1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to, and the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part.

(b)(1). In the absence of objections, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report and must “only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). After a thorough review of the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case in accordance with the above standard, the court finds no clear error, adopts the Report, ECF No. 17, and incorporates the Report by reference herein. As a result, Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition is

DISMISSED without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return. It is further ordered that a certificate of appealability is denied because Petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2).1 IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Sherri A. Lydon June 28, 2022 Sherri A. Lydon Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge

1 A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000); Rose v. Lee,

(4th Cir. 2001). In the instant matter, the court finds that Petitioner has failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”