Opinion
2:00-CV-0375.
May 31, 2001.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION
On November 16, 2000, petitioner JAMES ANTHONY WARREN filed with this Court a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody challenging his July 20, 2000 disciplinary proceeding.
On May 7, 2001, the Court, after having been informed by the Clerk that a defect existed in the petition in that the signature of the party proceeding pro se did not appear on the document as required by F.R.C.P. 11, ordered that the petition be stricken from the record of this case. The Court directed the Clerk to unfile and return the document to the party who filed it. Petitioner has not filed any pleadings since November 16, 2000.
RECOMMENDATION
It is the RECOMMENDATION of the United States Magistrate Judge to the United States District Judge that the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by petitioner JAMES ANTHONY WARREN be DISMISSED for want of prosecution.
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.
Any party 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 the Magistrate Judge and 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.