Summary
adopting Memorandum and Recommendation and dismissing the § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction
Summary of this case from Velez v. PaulOpinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-306
08-04-2020
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