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

John Anthony Michael Williams, ) Case No. 9:22-cv-04142-DCC ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Director of the Spartanburg County ) Detention Center, ) ) Respondent. ) ________________________________ )

Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, is seeking habeas corpus relief pursuant to

. In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On December 20, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued an order directing Petitioner to provide certain documents to bring the case into proper form for further evaluation. ECF No. 3. Petitioner has not responded to the order. On January 30, 2023, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the petition be summarily dismissed pursuant to Younger v. Harris,

(1971), or, in the alternative, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). ECF No. 6. The Magistrate Judge advised Petitioner of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious 1 consequences if he failed to do so. Petitioner has filed no objections, and the time to do so has passed. 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. See Mathews v. Weber,

(1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a 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 to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See

(b). The Court will review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. 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.” (citation omitted)). After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Report of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Report’s recommendation; accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr. 2 United States District Judge June 5, 2023 Spartanburg, South Carolina

3