IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Coy Glenn McKinney, C/A No. 0:25-cv-3121-JFA-PJG

Petitioner,

v. ORDER Warden, FCI Bennettsville,

Respondent.

Coy Glenn McKinney (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed this action seeking habeas corpus relief under

. In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for initial review. After performing an initial review of the Petition, the Magistrate Judge issued an order providing Petitioner an opportunity to submit the documents necessary to bring the case into proper form for evaluation and possible service of process. (ECF No.5). However, Petitioner did not receive the order, as it was returned to the court as undeliverable mail. Thereafter, the Magistrate Judge prepared a thorough Report and Recommendation (“Report”). (ECF No. 10). Within the Report, the Magistrate Judge opines the Complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.

The Report sets forth, in detail, the relevant facts and standards of law on this matter, and this Court incorporates those facts and standards without a recitation. Petitioner was advised of his right to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on May 28, 2025. Jd. The Magistrate Judge required Petitioner to file objections by June 11, 2025. /d. Petitioner failed to file objections. Thus, this matter is ripe for review. A district court is only required to conduct a de novo review of the specific portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which an objection is made. See

(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Carniewski v. W. Virginia Bd. of Prob. & Parole,

(4th Cir. 1992). In the absence of specific objections to portions of the Magistrate’s Report, this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis,

(4th Cir. 1983). Here, Petitioner has failed to raise any objections and therefore this Court is not required to give an explanation for adopting the recommendation. A review of the Report and prior orders indicates that the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Petitioner’s Complaint is subject to summary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41. After carefully reviewing the applicable laws, the record in this case, and the Report, this Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation fairly and accurately summarizes the facts and applies the correct principles of law. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and incorporates it herein by reference. (ECF No. 10). Consequently, this action is summarily dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Cader tons July 15, 2025 Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge