Darren Williams v. Warden, FCI-Texarkana

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION DARREN WILLIAMS, § § Petitioner, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-CV-46-RWS-JBB § WARDEN, FCI-TEXARKANA, § § Respondent. § ORDER Plaintiff Darren Williams, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled and numbered petition for the writ of habeas corpus complaining of the computation of his sentence. Docket No. 1. The above-captioned case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.

After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on December 19, 2025, recommending that the petition be dismissed as moot because Petitioner sought a transfer to pre-release custody and records show this has now been obtained. Docket No. 11. As of this date, no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed. A previous order sent to Petitioner at his last known address was returned as undeliverable. To date, Petitioner has not advised the Court of his current mailing address. Local Rule CV-11(d) of the Local Rules of Court for the Eastern District of Texas requires that a pro se litigant must provide the Court with a physical address and is responsible for keeping the Clerk of Court advised in writing of his current physical address. The Court has no duty to locate litigants who do not keep the court apprised of their current address. Ashlock v. Kelley, No. 5:17-CV-209-RWS, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104904, 2019 WL 2578628 (E.D. Tex., June 24, 2019).

Because no objections have been filed, any aggrieved party is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Moreover, except upon grounds of plain error, an aggrieved party is barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Texas, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (Sth Cir. 2017); Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, Case No. 4:21-CV-00203-RAS, 2021 WL 3287683, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021).

The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this case and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 11) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the above-styled petition for the writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED-AS- MOOT. The dismissal of this petition shall not prevent Petitioner from seeking such relief as he may be entitled from the sentencing court.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th day of February, 2026.

[Dohert LO Llrpectsr G2.

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 2 of 2