REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

KEVIN F. McDONALD, Magistrate Judge.

This matter is before the court on the petitioner's motion for entry of default or, in the alternative, for summary judgment (doc. 18). The petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks 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 Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.), this magistrate judge is authorized to review post-trial petitions for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district court.

The petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on July 2, 2014. On July 3, 2014, the undersigned authorized service of process and directed the respondent to file an answer or other response to the petition as soon as reasonably possible but no later than 50 days from the date of service. The respondent was served on that same date. On August 21, 2014, the respondent moved for an extension of time to file a response. That motion was granted, and the time for response was extended through September 25, 2014. On September 25, 2014, the respondent filed a motion for summary judgment (doc. 14) and a return and memorandum in support of that motion (doc. 15). By order filed September 25, 2014, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), the petitioner was advised of the summary judgment dismissal procedure and the possible consequences if he failed to adequately respond to the motion. On September 29, 2014, the petitioner filed the instant motion seeking entry of default or, in the alternative, summary judgment against the respondent.

The petitioner complains that the respondent failed to timely respond pursuant to this court's August 21, 2014, text order, which extended the time period for the respondent to file an answer or other response to the petitioner (doc. 12). This argument is meritless as the respondent timely filed a return and motion for summary judgment. Moreover, default judgment is not available in a habeas action. See Kelley v. McCall, C.A. No. 3:09-3133-HMH-JRM, 2010 WL 1999521, at *3 (D.S.C. Apr. 26, 2010) ("Rule 55, Fed. R. Civ. P., pertaining to default judgment, is not applicable to habeas cases."), adopted by 2010 WL 1999488 (D.S.C. May 19, 2010). Based upon the foregoing, and as the petitioner has failed to show that he is entitled to summary judgment, the motion (doc. 18) should be denied. The petitioner is hereby reminded that his response to the respondent's motion for summary judgment is due by October 30, 2014.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.