□ Southern District of Texas ENTERED October 29, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT athan Ochsner, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION MONTREAIL DEAN DUNGY, § § Petitioner, § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-CV-300 § UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, etal, § § Respondents. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie Hampton’s Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R). (D.E. 25). The M&R recommends that the Court sua sponte dismiss as moot Petitioner Montreail Dungy’s

petition (D.E. 1) and deny Respondent USA’s construed motion for summary judgment (D.E. 19) as moot. 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

! Petitioner’s mail was returned as undeliverable. Since then, the Court has waited an appropriate amount of time for an updated address. As a party, Petitioner is required to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times and has failed to do so. 1/2

Judge, the filings of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 25). Accordingly, the Court: (1) Sua sponte DISMISSES as moot Petitioner’s

petition (D.E. 1). (2) DENIES Respondent USA’s construed motion for summary judgment (D.E. 19) as moot. A final judgment will be entered separately. SO ORDERED. Lf 4 DA S. MORALES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: Corpus Christi, Texas October gu , 2021

2/2