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

Homer Berryhill, ) Civil Action No.: 0:23-4845-BHH ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Warden Jansen, ) ) Respondent. ) __________________________________ ) Petitioner Homer Berryhill (“Petitioner”) filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. 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 initial review. On March 14, 2024, Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett filed a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) outlining the issues and recommending that the Court grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss based on Petitioner’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Attached to the Report was a notice advising Petitioner 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 objections were filed, 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 agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge’s Report (ECF No. 24); the Court grants Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 14) and dismisses this action based on Petitioner’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies; and the Court denies Petitioner’s motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 19).

IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/Bruce H. Hendricks United States District Judge April 2, 2024 Charleston, South Carolina ****** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL The parties are hereby notified that any right to appeal this Order is governed by Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 2