Craig v. Edge

Filing 7

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 6 Report and Recommendation. It is accordingly ORDERED that the Magistrate Judges report (Docket No. 6) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the petition is DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Finally, it is ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby DENIED-AS-MOOT. Signed by District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III on 3/27/2020. (slo, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
JOHN C CRAIG,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEREK
EDGE,
TEXARKANA;

WARDEN

FCI

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-CV-00041-RWS

Defendant.
ORDER
Petitioner John C. Craig, an inmate proceeding pro se, brought this petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court referred this matter to the Honorable
Caroline M. Craven, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Magistrate
Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending the petition be denied. Docket No.
6.
Petitioner’s last known address was at the FCI Texarkana Facility. The Court sent a copy
of the Report and Recommendation to Petitioner at that address. Though the copy has not been
returned as undeliverable, the BOP inmate locator search for Mr. Craig indicates that he now
resides at USP Leavenworth.
On March 14, 2018, the Court mailed to the Petitioner Pro Se Guidelines, informing
Petitioner that he was obligated to report any change of address to the Clerk of the Court. Mr.
Craig did not so notify the Court of his change of address.
Because no objections to the report have been received, Petitioner is not entitled to de novo
review by the District Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s findings, conclusions and recommendations,

and except upon grounds of plain error, he is barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to
factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assoc., 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en
banc).
Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the report of the
Magistrate Judge and agrees with the report of the Magistrate Judge. See United States v. Raddatz,
447 U.S. 667, 683 (1980) (“[T]he statute permits the district court to give to the magistrate’s
proposed findings of fact and recommendations ‘such weight as [their] merit commands and the
sound discretion of the judge warrants . . . .’ ”) (quoting Mathews v. Weber, 23 U.S. 261, 275

.
(1976)). It is accordingly
ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s report (Docket No. 6) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the petition is DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Finally, it is
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby
DENIED-AS-MOOT.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 27th day of March, 2020.

____________________________________
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2