Opinion
2:01-CV-0249
April 7, 2004
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner SCOTT A. SARTAIN filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division, a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging the result of a November, 2000, disciplinary proceeding at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Neal Unit in Amarillo, Texas. An inquiry by the Court on October 22, 2003, to the Records Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, revealed petitioner was discharged from prison on October 10, 2003. Petitioner has not communicated with the Court since his release from custody and has failed to provide either the Clerk of the Court or the Court with a change of address giving notice of his current address.
THEREFORE, it is the opinion of the undersigned that this case is ripe for dismissal for failure to prosecute. Further, since petitioner was discharged on October 10, 2003, the issues raised in petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus are moot.
RECOMMENDATION
It is the RECOMMENDATION of the United States Magistrate Judge to the United States District Judge that this case initiated by petitioner SCOTT A. SARTAIN be DISMISSED for want of prosecution and as moot.
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, and to counsel for the respondent in the most efficient manner available.
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.