Williams v. Hillhouse

Filing 13

ORDER adopting 11 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. This petition for habeas corpus is hereby DENIED and this action is DISMISSEDwithout prejudice. The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle on 1/3/2025. (wea)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
JAY WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 6:23-cv-259-JDK-KNM

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner Jay Williams, then an inmate of the Henderson County Jail
proceeding pro se, filed this federal petition for writ of habeas corpus without paying
the filing fee or moving to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The petition was referred
to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions
of law, and recommendations for disposition.
On September 24, 2024, Judge Mitchell ordered Petitioner to pay the filing fee
or move to proceed IFP and to file a second amended petition clearly setting forth his
claims within thirty days. Docket Nos. 8; 9. Petitioner complied with neither order.
Mail sent to Petitioner’s last known address was returned as undeliverable because
he has been released from jail and failed to file a notice of change of address. Docket
No. 10; see also Loc. R. CV-11(d) (“A pro se litigant . . . is responsible for keeping the
clerk advised in writing of his or her current physical address.”).

1

On December 6, 2024, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that this
petition be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Docket No. 11. Judge Mitchell also
recommended that a certificate of appealability be denied. Id. Again, mail sent to
Petitioner was returned as undeliverable. Docket No. 12. No timely objections were
filed.
This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de
novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and
Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court
examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law.
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc),
superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to
file objections from ten to fourteen days).
Here, Petitioner did not object in the prescribed period. The Court therefore
reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and
reviews the legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See
United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that, if no
objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly
erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”).
Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case,
the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to
law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 11) as the findings of this Court. This

2

petition for habeas corpus is hereby DENIED and this action is DISMISSED
without prejudice. The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 3rd day of January, 2025.

___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3