UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SHREVEPORT DIVISION

EARNEST HOBLEY, III. CIVIL ACTION NO. 25-335-P

VERSUS JUDGE DOUGHTY

HENRY WHITEHORN MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION In accordance with the standing order of this court, this matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for review, report and recommendation. STATEMENT OF CLAIM Before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by pro se petitioner Earnest Hobley, III., (“Petitioner”), pursuant to

. This petition was filed in this court on March 14, 2025. Petitioner, a pretrial detainee, was detained in the Caddo Correctional Center in Shreveport, Louisiana, when he filed this petition. He challenges his pretrial proceedings and detention. Petitioner names Henry Whitehorn as respondent. On June 11, 2025, Petitioner was ordered to file, within 30 days of the service of the order, documentary proof that he exhausted his available state court remedies (Doc. 6). However, that order was returned to this court on July 1, 2025, by the United States Postal Service marked “RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD.” To date, Petitioner has not informed this court of his new address. Accordingly; IT IS RECOMMENDED that this petition be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, sua sponte, for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as interpreted by the court and under the court's inherent power

to control its own docket. See Link v. Wabash Railroad Company,

,

(1962); Rogers v. Kroger Company,

(5th Cir. 1982). OBJECTIONS Under the provisions of

(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), parties aggrieved by this recommendation have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report and

Recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court unless an extension of time is granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). A party may respond to another party’s objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Counsel are directed to furnish a courtesy copy of any objections or responses to the District Judge at the time of filing.

A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation set forth above, within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the proposed factual findings and legal conclusions that were accepted by the district court and that were not objected to by the aforementioned party. See Douglas v. U.S.A.A.,

(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

Page 2 of 3 THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in chambers, at Shreveport, Louisiana, on this 12™ day of August 2025.

Mark L. Hornsby U.S. Magistrate Judge

Page 3 of 3