ORDER

TERRY L. WOOTEN, District Judge.

Petitioner Ray A. Grayson ("Petitioner") brought this civil action, pro se, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. #1).

The matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation ("the Report") filed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges to whom this case had previously been assigned. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment be granted, that the Petitioner's § 2254 application be denied and that this action be dismissed. (Doc. #30). Objections were due on December 27, 2011. Petitioner has filed no objections to the Report.

This Court is charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636. In the absence of objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, this Court is not required to give any explanation for adopting the recommendation. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983).

The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. For the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. (Doc. #30). The Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment is therefore GRANTED. (Doc. #23). The Petitioner's application is DENIED and the action is DISMISSED.

The Court has reviewed this petition in accordance with Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings. The Court concludes that it is not appropriate to issue a certificate of appealability as to the issues raised herein. Petitioner is advised that he may seek a certificate from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals under Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.