IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Omar Gadsden, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) Civil Action No. 0:23-cv-2065-BHH v. ) ) ORDER Warden Joseph, ) ) Respondent. ) ________________________________ ) This matter is before the Court upon Petitioner Omar Gadsden’s (“Plaintiff”) pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. On August 4, 2023, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment. (ECF No. 13.) In accordance with

and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for preliminary determinations. After considering the parties’ arguments and reviewing the evidence of record in light of the applicable law, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation (“Report”) on October 27, 2023, recommending that the Court grant Respondent’s motion for summary judgment. In summary, the Magistrate Judge found no merit to Petitioner’s claim that the Bureau of Prisons is misapplying the First Step Act by not applying his earned time credit based on his medium risk assessment. Attached to the Magistrate Judge’s Report was a notice advising the parties of the right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date, no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber,

(1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions.

(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. 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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Here, because no party has filed objections to the Report, the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and fully agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 19), and for the specific reasons set forth in the

Report, the Court grants Respondent’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 13) and denies Petitioner’s § 2241 petition. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge November 17, 2023 Charleston, South Carolina

2