Damiane Antron McCoy, also known as Damaine Antron McCoy v. State of South...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Damiane Antron McCoy, also known as Case No. 9:25-13813-RMG Damaine Antron McCoy, Petitioner, v. ORDER State of South Carolina, Respondent.

This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No.7) recommending that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice for failure to respond to the Magistrate Judge’s Proper Form Order or to communicate with the Magistrate Judge in any way. Petitioner was advised that he had fourteen days to file written objections to the R & R and the failure to file timely objections would result in limited, clear error review and waiver of the right to appeal the district court’s order to the court of appeals. (Id. at 14). Plaintiffs filed no timely objections to the R & R. I. Background Petitioner, a state prisoner serving a 17 year sentence after pleading guilty to assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature and resisting arrest with a deadly weapon, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on December 10, 2025. The Magistrate Judge issued a Proper Form Order on March 12, 2026, directing Petitioner to sign his original Petition, complete, sign and return Form A0-241 (Petitioner for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254), and pay a $5 filing fee or return an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 5). Petitioner was warned that a failure to timely comply with the Proper Form Order could result in the dismissal of his petition for failure to prosecute. (Id. at 2). Petitioner filed no response to the Proper Form Order.

Thereafter, the Magistrate Judge issued a R & R recommending the dismissal of the petition without prejudice for failure to respond to the Proper Form Order. (Dkt. No. 7). Petitioner was advised that he had 14 days to file written objections to the R & R. (Id. at 4). No timely objections have been filed.

II. Legal Standards A. Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility for making a final determination remains with this Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The Court is charged with making a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report to which specific objections are made, and the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

III. Discussion The Magistrate Judge ably summarized the factual and legal issues in this action and correctly concluded that the Petitioner’s petition should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute.

Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 7) as the Order of the Court and DISMISSES this action without prejudice AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Richard Mark Gergel Richard Mark Gergel United States District Judge May 18, 2026 Charleston, South Carolina