From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Helm v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
Aug 4, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-306 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2020)

Summary

adopting Memorandum and Recommendation and dismissing the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction

Summary of this case from Velez v. Paul

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-306

08-04-2020

CHRISTOPHER HELM Petitioner v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA


ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie Hampton's Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R). (D.E. 23). The M&R recommends that the Court grant Respondent's motion to dismiss (D.E. 22) and dismiss Helm's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition (D.E. 1) for lack of jurisdiction. (D.E. 23, p. 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, LP, No. CIV. A. H-14-2700, 2015 WL 3823141, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015).

Helm's mail was returned as undeliverable. (D.E. 24); see also (D.E. 15; D.E. 17; D.E. 21). Since then, the Court has waited an appropriate amount of time for an updated address. As a party, Helm is required to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times and has failed to do so. --------

Having carefully 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 M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 23). Accordingly:

(1) Respondent's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. (D.E. 22).

(2) Helm's § 2241 petition (D.E. 1) is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction—with prejudice on the jurisdictional issue but without prejudice on the merits of the claim.

SIGNED and ORDERED this 4th day of August 2020.

/s/_________

DAVID S. MORALES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Helm v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
Aug 4, 2020
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-306 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2020)

adopting Memorandum and Recommendation and dismissing the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction

Summary of this case from Velez v. Paul
Case details for

Helm v. United States

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER HELM Petitioner v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

Date published: Aug 4, 2020

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-306 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2020)

Citing Cases

Velez v. Paul

Because this issue presents a jurisdictional question, the undersigned finds it is necessary to address it…

Alexander v. Myers

Rehaifis not retroactively applicable on collateral review. See In re: Palacios, 931 F.3d 1314, 1315 (11th…