IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

JOHN C CRAIG, § §

§ Plaintiff, § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:18-CV-00041-RWS § v. §

§ DEREK EDGE, WARDEN FCI § TEXARKANA; § § Defendant.

ORDER Petitioner John C. Craig, an inmate proceeding pro se, brought this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. The Court referred this matter to the Honorable Caroline M. Craven, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to

. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending the petition be denied. Docket No. 6. Petitioner’s last known address was at the FCI Texarkana Facility. The Court sent a copy of the Report and Recommendation to Petitioner at that address. Though the copy has not been returned as undeliverable, the BOP inmate locator search for Mr. Craig indicates that he now resides at USP Leavenworth. On March 14, 2018, the Court mailed to the Petitioner Pro Se Guidelines, informing Petitioner that he was obligated to report any change of address to the Clerk of the Court. Mr. Craig did not so notify the Court of his change of address. Because no objections to the report have been received, Petitioner is not entitled to de novo review by the District Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s findings, conclusions and recommendations, and except upon grounds of plain error, he is barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. 28 U.S.C. 8 636(b)(1)(C); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assoc.,

(Sth Cir. 1996) (en banc). Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the report of the Magistrate Judge and agrees with the report of the Magistrate Judge. See United States v. Raddatz,

(1980) (“[T]he statute permits the district court to give to the magistrate’s proposed findings of fact and recommendations ‘such weight as [their] merit commands and the sound discretion of the judge warrants... .’ ”) (quoting Mathews v. Weber,

, 275 (1976)). It is accordingly ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s report (Docket No. 6) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the petition is DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Finally, it is ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby DENIED-AS-MOOT.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 27th day of March, 2020.

foehert LU Gbrrnects. G2. ROBERT W. SCHROEDER II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2