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)

Download PDF
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?