Haro v. Paul

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION

JAVIER HARO PETITIONER

V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-CV-514-KHJ-LGI

WARDEN DAVID PAUL RESPONDENT

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation [19] of United States Magistrate Judge LaKeysha Greer Isaac. That Report recommends that this Court dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Javier Haro. [1]. Written objections to the Report were due by October 18, 2021. The Report notified the parties that failure to file written objections to the findings and recommendations contained therein by that date would bar further appeal in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. . No party filed written objections by this deadline. When no party has objected to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the Court need not review it de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made.”). In such cases, the Court applies the “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law” standard of review. , 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989). The Magistrate Judge recommended that this Court dismiss Haro’s petition for writ of habeas corpus as moot and for lack of jurisdiction. First, Haro has not established an ongoing “case or controversy” post-release. [19] at 3. Second, even if he did establish the requisite showing since his release from custody, he has not shown that his § 2241 petition should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

because he has failed to satisfy the § 2255(e)’s saving clause requirements. . Lastly, Haro has failed to submit a current address to the clerk of court and to communicate with the Court since filing his petition, and thus his petition is also subject to dismissal for want of prosecution and failure to comply with local rules. . Based on these findings, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Haro has lost interest in pursuing his claims for relief, thereby recommending dismissal. . at 4. After review of the record, the Court, being fully advised in the premises, finds that

the Report and Recommendation is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law and should be adopted as the opinion of this Court. Accordingly, this case is dismissed. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report and Recommendation [19] of United States Magistrate LaKeysha Greer Isaac, entered in this cause should be, and the same is, adopted as the finding of this Court. A

separate Final Judgment will issue this day. SO ORDERED, this the 19th day of October, 2021. s/ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE