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

Ryan C. Tadlock, ) ) Petitioner, ) Civil Action No. 5:23-cv-02866-TMC ) vs. ) ORDER ) Warden Terry Wallace, ) ) Respondent. ) ) _________________________________) Petitioner Ryan C. Tadlock (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

on June 21, 2023. (ECF No. 1). In accordance with

(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c), D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that the Petition be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. (ECF No. 18). The court mailed Petitioner a copy of the Report at his last known address, (ECF No. 19), and the Report was not returned to the court as undeliverable. Therefore, Petitioner is presumed to have received the Report. Petitioner was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. (ECF No. 18 at 4). However, Petitioner has filed no objections, and the time to do so has now run. The magistrate judge’s recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with the United States District Court. Wimmer v. Cook,

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

, 270–71 (1976)). Nevertheless, “[t]he district court is only required to review de novo those portions of the report to which specific objections have been made, and need not conduct de novo review ‘when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations.’” Farmer v. McBride, 177 Fed. App’x 327, 330–31 (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting Orpiano v. Johnson,

(4th Cir. 1982));

see also Elijah v. Dunbar,

(4th Cir. 2023) (noting “an objecting party ‘must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection’” and “‘an objection stating only “I object” preserves no issue for review’” (quoting United States v. Midgette,

(4th Cir. 2007); Lockert v. Faulkner,

(7th Cir. 1988))). Thus, “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). 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). However, in the absence of specific objections to the Report and Recommendation, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. Greenspan v. Brothers Prop. Corp.,

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

, 199–200 (4th Cir. 1983)). 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 Elijah,

(quoting Lockert,

); 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. 18), and incorporates it herein. Thus, the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. 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 October 10, 2023