□ Southern District of Texas UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ENTERED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS August 04, 2020 CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION David J. Bradley, Clerk

CHRISTOPHER HELM § § Petitioner § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-306 § UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie Hampton’s Memorandum and

Recommendation (M&R). (D.E. 23). The M&R recommends that the Court grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss (D.E. 22) and dismiss Helm’s

petition (D.E. 1) for lack of jurisdiction. (D.E. 23, p. 6). The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R.! See

(b)(1); FED. R. Clv. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No objection has been filed. When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United States v. Wilson,

(Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, No. CIV. A. H-14-2700,

, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015). . Having carefully reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the

' Helm’s mail was returned as undeliverable. (D.E. 24); see also (D.E. 15; D.E. 17; D.E. 21). Since then, the Court has waited an appropriate amount of time for an updated address. As a party, Helm is required to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times and has failed to do so.

1/2 ‘

M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary tovlaw, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 23). Accordingly: (1) Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. (D.E. 22). (2) Helm’s § 2241 petition (DE. 1) is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction—with prejudice on the jurisdictional issue but without prejudice on the merits of the claim.

SIGNED and ORDERED this 4th day eT |

DAVIS MOKALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2