Opinion
No. 2:00-CV-0164
February 21, 2001
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
On May 16, 2000, petitioner TIMOTHY MORROW filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Abilene Division, a form Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging the result of a disciplinary proceeding from the Neal Unit, Amarillo, Texas. On May 17, 2000, the petition was transferred to this Court. Petitioner's copy of the transfer order was returned to the Clerk's office on May 25, 2000 citing as the reason, "Returned to Sender, Refused; Paroled."
On June 19, 2000, the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge issued an Order to Show Cause Why Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Should Not be Denied as Moot. To date, petitioner has failed to respond. On July 5, 2000, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss as Moot citing that petitioner had been released to mandatory supervision, thus the loss of good time and work credits was no longer at issue. Petitioner has not responded to this motion although given the opportunity to do so.
RECOMMENDATION
It is the RECOMMENDATION of the United States Magistrate Judge to the United States District Judge that this case initiated by petition TIMOTHY MORROW be DISMISSED as moot and for failing to follow an order of the Court.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE and NOTIFICATION OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
The United States District Clerk is directed to send a file-marked copy of this Report and Recommendation to petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested.
Petitioner may object to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days after its date of filing. See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(b), 6(e). Any such objections shall be in the form of a written pleading entitled "Objections to the Report and Recommendation," and shall specifically identify the portions of the findings, conclusions, or recommendation to which objection is made, and set out fully the basis for each objection. Objecting parties shall file the written objections with the United States District Clerk and serve a copy of such objections on all other parties. A party's failure to timely file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation contained in this report shall bar an aggrieved party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions set forth in this report and accepted by the district court. Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996).
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.