Es ee Mae 5 Op ey SouTe.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION JASON CARL STROUD, § Petitioner, § § vs. § Civil Action No. 0:25-438-MGL § MARCUS RHODES, § Respondent. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITIONER’S PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE Petitioner Jason Carl Stroud (Stroud), who is representing himself, filed this petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus under

against Respondent Marcus Rhodes. This matter is before the Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (Report) of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending the Court summarily dismiss Stroud’s petition without prejudice. The Report was made in accordance with

and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight. 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 of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter with instructions.

(b)(1).

The Magistrate Judge filed the Report on February 20, 2025. To date, Stroud has failed to file any objections. Although the Report was returned to the Court as undeliverable, the Magistrate Judge previously advised Stroud of his duty “to always keep the Clerk of Court advised in writing . . . if

[his] address changes for any reason, so as to assure that orders or other matters that specify deadlines for [him] to meet will be received by [him].” January 29, 2025 Order at 2. The Magistrate Judge further advised Stroud any failure to comply with this requirement is deemed inexcusable and could result in dismissal of his case.

Therefore, the Court will proceed to review the Report under the standard set forth herein. “[I]n 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). Moreover, a failure to object waives appellate review. Wright v. Collins,

, 845–46 (4th Cir. 1985).

After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case under the standard set forth above, the Court adopts the Report and incorporates it herein. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Court Stroud’s petition is summarily DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. To the extent Stroud seeks a certificate of appealability, that request is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed this 2nd day of June 2025, in Columbia, South Carolina. s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Stroud is hereby notified of his right to appeal this Order within thirty days from the date hereof, pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.