IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E JAN 30 2020 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division CLERK US □□□□□ □□□□ JAMIL RASHID WATSON, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 3:18CV524 J. RAY ORMOND, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Jamil Rashid Watson, a federal inmate proceeding pro se, filed this petition pursuant to

raising claims related to the calculation of his good time credit and early release eligibility. (ECF No. 5.) On January 9, 2020, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation wherein he recommended dismissing the § 2241 Petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because (1) Watson’s first claim concerning his good time credit was rendered moot when an incident report was expunged from his prison record; and, (2) his second claim was not ripe for judicial disposition because Watson had not completed the Residential Drug Abuse Program to make him eligible for early release. (ECF No. 18.) The Magistrate Judge advised Watson that he could file objections within fourteen (14) days after the entry of the Report and Recommendation. Watson has not responded and the time to do 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.” Estrada v. Witkowski,

(D.S.C. 1993) (citing Mathews v. Weber,

(1976)). This Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”

(b)(1). “The filing of objections to a magistrate

[judge’s] report enables the district judge to focus attention on those issues—factual and legal— that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985) (footnote omitted). In the absence of a specific written objection, this Court may adopt a magistrate judge’s recommendation without conducting a de novo review. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005). There being no objections, and the Court having determined that the Report and Recommendation is correct on its merits, the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 18) will be ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss will be GRANTED. (ECF No. 12.) The Court will dismiss without prejudice Watson’s § 2241 Petition. (ECF No. 5.) Watson’s claims and the action will be DISMISSED. An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

ich United States District Judge Date: Tanuacy 3o 20290 Richmond, Virginia