IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Albert T. Ellis, C/A No. 4:25-cv-8729-SAL

Petitioner,

v. ORDER Warden Joseph,

Respondent.

Petitioner Albert T. Ellis (“Petitioner”), a federal prisoner, filed this action pursuant to

. This matter is before the court on the Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) of Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, made in accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), recommending dismissal of Petitioner’s action without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return.1 [ECF No. 10.] Attached to the Report was a notice advising Petitioner of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so.

. Petitioner has not filed objections, and the time for doing so has expired. 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 this court. See Mathews v. Weber,

, 270–71 (1976). The court is charged with making a

1 Since the magistrate judge issued his Report, the Fourth Circuit decided Bonnie v. Dunbar, -- F.4th --,

(4th Cir. 2025), affirming that the Bureau of Prisons is required by statute to treat multiple sentences as a single aggregate sentence for administrative purposes, including the computation of First Step Act credits. Bonnie supports the magistrate judge’s recommended dismissal. de novo determination of only those portions of the Report that have been specifically objected to, and the court may accept, reject, or modify the Report, in whole or in part.

(b)(1). In the absence of objections, the court is not required to provide an explanation for adopting the Report and 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 & Acc. Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). After a thorough review of the Report, the applicable law, and the record of this case, the court finds no clear error and ADOPTS the Report, ECF No. 10. For the reasons discussed above and in the Report, the petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without requiring Respondent to file a return.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Sherr x. November 21, 2025 Sherri A. Lydon Columbia, South Carolina United States District Judge