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

Damorius D. Gaines, ) Case No. 4:24-cv-07150-DCC ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Warden Shane Jackson, ) ) Respondent. ) ________________________________ )

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

. ECF No. 1. In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), (D.S.C.), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On December 13, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the Petition be denied as Petitioner has not exhausted his state court remedies. ECF No. 6. The Magistrate Judge advised Petitioner of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Petitioner failed to file objections and the time in which to do so has lapsed. 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 1 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)).

As Petitioner did not file objections, the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. Finding none, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the instant § 2254 petition should be dismissed because Petitioner has not exhausted his state court remedies. See

(b)(1). Accordingly, the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return.

In addition, a certificate of appealability will not issue to a prisoner seeking habeas relief 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 this case, the Court finds that the petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of 2 the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge April 11, 2025 Spartanburg, South Carolina

3