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

Christopher Terell Purnell, ) ) Petitioner, ) Civil Action No. 6:22-cv-04527-TMC ) vs. ) ORDER ) Warden Bennettsville Federal ) Correctional Institution, ) ) Respondent. ) _________________________________) Petitioner Christopher Terell Purnell (“Petitioner”), a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on December 15, 2022. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with

(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. On February 7, 2023, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 10). The magistrate judge issued an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison,

(4th Cir. 1975), advising Petitioner of the summary judgment procedure and the consequences if he failed to adequately respond. (ECF No. 11). The Roseboro order was mailed to Petitioner at his last known address provided to the court. (ECF No. 12). Petitioner filed his response in opposition to the motion on February 27, 2023, (ECF No. 13). Now before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending the court grant Respondent’s motion for summary judgment and deny Petitioner’s petition. (ECF No. 15). The Report also advised Petitioner of his right to file objections thereto within fourteen days. Id. at 12. The Report was mailed to Petitioner at the address he provided the court, (ECF No. 16), and has not been returned as undeliverable. Accordingly, Petitioner is presumed to have received the Report. However, to date, no objections have been filed and the time in which to do so has run. Respondent’s motion for summary judgment and the Report are, therefore, now ripe for review. The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final determination in this matter remains with this court. See Wimmer v. Cook,

(4th Cir. 1985) (quoting Mathews v. Weber,

, 270–71 (1976)). In the absence of objections, this court

is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report. Greenspan v. Brothers Prop. Corp.,

(D.S.C. 2015) (citing Camby v. Davis,

, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983)). Rather, “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.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 Advisory Committee’s note). Furthermore, failure to file specific written objections to the Report results in a party’s waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s judgment based upon that recommendation. See Martin v. Duffy,

(4th Cir. 2017).

Therefore, having thoroughly reviewed the Report and the record under the appropriate standards and, finding no clear error, the court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety (ECF No. 15), and incorporates it herein. Accordingly, Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED, and Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED. 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); Rose v. Lee,

(4th Cir. 2001). In the instant matter, the court finds that Petitioner failed to make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Accordingly, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Timothy M. Cain United States District Judge Anderson, South Carolina June 7, 2023