UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SHREVEPORT DIVISION

RUFUS JAMES HAMPTON, III. CIVIL ACTION NO. 25-963-P AKA ASSYRRO RUFUS HAMPTON, III.

VERSUS JUDGE DOUGHTY

WARDEN MICHELLE DAUZAT 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 Rufus James Hampton, III., aka Assayrro Rufus Hampton, III., (“Petitioner”), pursuant to

. This petition was filed in this court on July 2, 2025. Petitioner is incarcerated in the David Wade Correctional Center in Homer, Louisiana. He challenges his prison disciplinary conviction and sentence. Petitioner names Warden Michelle Dauzat as respondent. Petitioner was ordered on August 28, 2025, to file, within 30 days of the service of the order, documentary proof that he exhausted his available state court remedies (Doc. 6). To date, Petitioner has not filed a response. 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,

(Sth 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). THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in chambers, at Shreveport, Louisiana, on this 18th day of November 2025. Mark L. Hornsby U.S. Magistrate Judge Page 2 of «