IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

ORLANDA LARRY, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-25-543-PRW ) K. ZOOK, ) ) Respondent. )

ORDER Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 11), recommending the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 1) without prejudice because Plaintiff’s custodian is no longer confined in the Western District of Oklahoma, and, accordingly, the Court no longer has jurisdiction over Plaintiff.1 Plaintiff was advised that he had a right to object to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 11) by July 24, 2025, in accordance with

and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and that failure to make a timely objection would waive any right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues addressed in the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 11). The Court subsequently extended Plaintiff’s time by which to object to September 1, 2025. (Dkt. 15). No objections have been filed as of this date. Having failed to object,

1 Rumsfeld v. Padilla,

(2004) (quoting

(a)). Plaintiff has accordingly waived his right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues addressed in the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 11).?

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 11) in full and DISMISSES this case WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court further DENIES AS MOOT the remaining motions (Dkts. 8 and 9). A separate judgment will follow.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of October 2025.

PATRICK R. WYRICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2 United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop.,

(10th Cir. 1996); Moore v. United States,

(10th Cir. 1991); cf

(b)(1) (requiring a district judge to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made” but otherwise permitting a district judge to review the report and recommendations under any standard it deems appropriate).