Ruyle v. Northcutt et al
Filing
18
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 16 Report and Recommendations. The application for the writ of habeas corpus is dismissed for failure to prosecute. Signed by District Judge J. Campbell Barker on 1/23/2023. (ndc)
Case 6:21-cv-00485-JCB-KNM Document 18 Filed 01/23/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 49
No. 6:21-cv-00485
James Ruyle,
Petitioner,
v.
Eddie Northcutt et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER
Petitioner James Ruyle, an inmate of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action against
state district judges, prosecutors, and district clerks in Hopkins
County, Texas. The court construed the petition as an application
for the writ of habeas corpus and transferred to the case to the Tyler
Division, where petitioner was incarcerated. The case was referred
to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell.
Prison records show petitioner was released on parole on February 10, 2022. He has not contacted the court nor furnished his current mailing address since that time. The magistrate judge issued a
report recommending that the petition be dismissed for failure to
prosecute. A copy of this report was sent to plaintiff at his last known
address but was returned as undeliverable.
When there have been no timely objections to a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation, the court reviews it only for
clear error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415,
1420 (5th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report
and being satisfied that it contains no clear error, the court accepts
its findings and recommendation. The application for the writ of habeas corpus is dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Case 6:21-cv-00485-JCB-KNM Document 18 Filed 01/23/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 50
So ordered by the court on January 23, 2023.
J. C A M P BE L L B A R K E R
United States District Judge
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?