UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:23-cv-00546 Benito Contreras, Jr., Petitioner, V. Sheriff Larry R. Smith, Respondent.

ORDER Petitioner Benito Contreras, Jr., proceeding pro se and im forma pauperis, filed this habeas action while an inmate in the Smith County Jail. Doc. 1. The case was referred to United States Magis- trate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to

(b). Doc. 2. On February 12, 2024, the magistrate judge issued a report (Doc. 11) recommending that this case be dismissed without prejudice due to the petitioner’s failure to comply with the court’s order to file a second amended petition. Doc. 10. A copy of the report was mailed to the petitioner, who did not file written objections. The envelope containing the report was returned to the court stamped “return to sender” and “no longer at this address.” Doc. 12. The publicly available records of the Smith County Jail confirm that the petitioner was released from jail on February 9, 2024. See Jail Records Search Detail for Contreras, Benito, available at https://judicial.smith-county.com/PublicAccess/JailingDe- tail. aspx? JailingID=386403 (last visited May 9, 2024). It is well-set- tled that a plaintiff has an ongoing obligation and responsibility to inform the Court of his whereabouts through a current mailing ad- dress. See Martinez-Reyes v. United States,

, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2016). This requirement is memorialized in the Local Rules of the Eastern District of Texas: “A pro se litigant must provide the court with a physical address (i.e., a post office box is not

acceptable) and is responsible for keeping the clerk advised in writ- ing of his or her current physical address.” Local Rule CV-11(d). When no party objects to the magistrate judge’s report and rec- ommendation, the court reviews it only for clear error. See Douglass vy. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,

(Sth Cir. 1996). Hav- ing reviewed the magistrate judge’s report, and being satisfied that it contains no clear error, the court accepts its findings and recommen- dation. This case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prose- cute and for failure to comply with a court order. So ordered by the court on May 17, 2024. _fLacbok BARKER United States District Judge

_2-