Barnes v. Warden, FCI Three Rivers

• Court: District Court, S.D. Texas
• Decided: August 20, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00072
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

□ Southern District of Texas ENTERED August 20, 2024 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION NEVON BARNES, § § Petitioner, § V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00072 § WARDEN FCI THREE RIVERS, § § Respondent. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 14). The M&R recommends that the Court dismiss this habeas petition without prejudice for failure to prosecute, id. at 4, or alternatively, dismiss it as moot because: Petitioner has been released from federal custody, see id. at 4-6. The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. Civ. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No objection has been filed! When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell v. Litton Loan Servicing, L.P., No. 4:14-CV-02700, 2015 WL 3823141, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015) (Harmon, J.) (citation omitted). Having reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the MER is not clearly erroneous

' The Court mailed a copy of the D.E. 14 M&R to Petitioner. See May 22, 2024 Docket Entry. The Court received notice that this mail was returned as undeliverable. See (D.E. 15). The Court has since waited an appropriate amount of time and Petitioner has neither notified the Court of an updated address nor objected to the D.E. 14 M&R. As such, the Court considers this M&R ripe. 1/2

or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (DE. 14). As the M&R notes, see id, at 4, “[a] moot case presents no Article III case or controversy, and a court has no constitutional jurisdiction to resolve the issues it presents.” See Goldin v. Bartholow, 166 F.3d 710, 717 (Sth Cir. 1999) (citing Hogan v. Miss. Univ. for Women, 646 F.2d 1116, 1117 n.1 (Sth Cir. 1981)). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Petitioner’s habeas petition be DISMISSED as moot. See (D.E. 1; D-E. 2). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. SO ORDERED.

DA . MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: Corpus Christi, Texas August 2. ot72024

2/2