ipaes Disp, ey & SO, Syne /S ny Cori”

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION JOHN DIAL, JR., § Petitioner, § § vs. § Civil Action No. 0:25-4328-MGL § DIR. HARVEY and ACTING DIR. § LIPSCOMB, § Respondents. § ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITIONER’S PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE Petitioner John Dial Jr. (Dial), a pretrial detainee who is representing himself, filed this petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus under

against Respondents Dir. Harvey and Acting Dir. Lipscomb. 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 Dial’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 June 10, 2025. To date, Dial has failed to file any objections.

“[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 Dial’s petition is summarily DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. To the extent Dial seeks a certificate of appealability, that request is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed this 8th day of July 2025, in Columbia, South Carolina. s/ Mary Geiger Lewis MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

***** NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Dial 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.