ORDER

BRUCE HOWE HENDRICKS, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Ila Michelle Carter's pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), the matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for initial review.

On October 27, 2016, Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald filed a Report and Recommendation ("Report") outlining the issues and recommending that the Court grant Respondent's motion for summary judgment based on Petitioner's failure to timely file her petition. Attached to the Report was a notice advising Plaintiff of his right to file written objections to the Report within fourteen days of being served with a copy. To date, no objections have been filed.

The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the Court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the Court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (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). In the absence of specific objections, the Court reviews the matter only for clear error. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (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.'") (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).

Here, because no objections were filed, the Court has reviewed the record, the applicable law, and the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge for clear error. After review, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the instant petition was not timely filed pursuant to the one-year statute of limitations set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA"), as amended in 1996. Moreover, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Petitioner has not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that warrant equitable tolling.

Accordingly, the Court adopts and incorporates the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 63) and grants Respondent's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 22).

IT IS SO ORDERED.