Southern District of Texas UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ENTERED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS June 27, 2024 CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION Nathan Ochsner, Clerk DARRELL ANTHONY WILLIAMS, § Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00051 BOBBY LUMPKIN Respondent. ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton’s Memorandum and Recommendation (““M&R”). (D.E. 24). The M&R recommends that the Court dismiss this action for want of prosecution. Jd. at 2. The parties were provided proper notice of, and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R.! See

(b)(1); FED. R. Civ. 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); Badaiki v. Schlumberger Holdings Corp.,

, 743-44 (S.D. Tex. 2021) (Eskridge, J.). 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 M&R is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 24). Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice for want of prosecution. Any pending motions are

' Plaintiff's mail was returned as undeliverable. See (D.E. 19, p. 2; D.E. 23, p. 2; DE. 25, p. 2; D.E. 26, p. 1). Since then, the Court has waited an appropriate amount of time for Petitioner to provide an updated address or otherwise respond to the D.E. 20 show cause order. As a party, Plaintiff is required to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times and has failed to do so.

1/9

DISMISSED as moot. A final judgment will be entered separately. a! LI / SO ORDERED. So } | /| \ Ke DANID '§. MORALES UNITED-STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: Corpus See Texas June 2772024

9/9