REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

KEVIN F. McDONALD, Magistrate Judge.

The petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this action seeking habeas corpus relief pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2254. Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) DSC, this magistrate judge is authorized to review posttrial petitions for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the District Court.

On March 22, 2012, the respondent filed a motion summary judgment. By order of this court filed March 22, 2012, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the petitioner was advised of the summary judgment procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately. Despite this explanation, the petitioner did not to respond to the motion.

As the petitioner is proceeding pro se, the court filed a second order on April 27, 2012, giving the petitioner an additional twenty days in which to file his response to the motion summary judgment. The petitioner was specifically advised that if he failed to respond, this action would be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The petitioner elected not to respond.

A complaint may be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)1 for failure to prosecute and/or failure to comply with orders of the court. Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95 (4th Cir.1989). In considering whether to dismiss an action pursuant to Rule 41(b), the court is required to consider four factors:

Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir.1978).

In the present case, the petitioner is proceeding pro se, and he is thus entirely responsible for his actions. It is solely through the petitioner's neglect, and not that of an attorney, that no responses have been filed. Meanwhile, the respondent is left to wonder when the action against him will be resolved. The petitioner has not responded to the respondent's motion for summary judgment or the court's orders requiring him to respond. Accordingly, the undersigned concludes the petitioner has abandoned his lawsuit. No other reasonable sanctions are available.

Based on the foregoing, it appears the petitioner no longer wishes to pursue this action. Accordingly, it is recommended that this action be dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989).

Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation

The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. "[I]n 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.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).

Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:

Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984.