IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION

Physique L. Dalton, ) Case No. 0:25-cv-03773-DCC ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Warden S. Napier, ) ) Respondent. ) ________________________________ )

This matter is before the Court upon Petitioner’s pro se petition. 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 Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation (“Report”). On July 29, 2025, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. ECF No. 20. On the same day, this Court issued an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison,

(4th Cir. 1975), advising Petitioner of the summary judgment/dismissal procedure and the possible consequences for failing to respond adequately. ECF No. 21. Petitioner did not file a response. On September 5, 2025, the Magistrate Judge gave Petitioner an additional opportunity to file a response. ECF No. 25. To date, Petitioner has not filed a response. On September 24, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). ECF No. 29. The Magistrate Judge advised Petitioner of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences for failing to do so. Petitioner has not filed objections to the Report and the time to do so has lapsed.1 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 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)).

After considering the record in this case, the applicable law, and the Reports of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b). Respondent’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment [20] is FOUND as MOOT.

1 The Court notes that the Report was returned as undeliverable. ECF No. 31. Petitioner was specifically warned that it is his responsibility to keep the Court apprised of his current address. ECF No. 7. IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr. United States District Judge November 4, 2025 Spartanburg, South Carolina