Marquez v. Childress

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION

JULIO CESAR GRUESO MARQUEZ PETITIONER

V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-CV-45-DPJ-ASH

WARDEN CHILDRESS RESPONDENT

ORDER This case is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [13] of United States Magistrate Judge Andrew S. Harris. Judge Harris recommends dismissing Grueso Marquez’s petition for writ of habeas corpus as moot under Article III, Section 2’s case-and-controversy requirement. Grueso Marquez filed no objection, and the time to do so has passed.1 “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983), quoted in Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other grounds by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) as noted in Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Servs., L.L.C., 875 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir. 2017). Finding no clear error, the Court accepts the well-reasoned recommendation. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [13] of United States Magistrate Judge Andrew S. Harris is adopted as the finding and holding of this Court.

1 The R&R [13] was returned as undeliverable on September 15, 2025. Mail Ret. [14]. As noted in the R&R, Grueso Marquez was released from custody on July 3, 2025, but he has not updated his mailing address with the Court. See id. (noting R&R was mailed to FCI Yazoo City Low); see also Orders [2, 5] (advising Petitioner of his obligation to notify the Court of any change of address). This action is dismissed. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 24th day of September, 2025.

s/ Daniel P. Jordan III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE