Keith Dewayne Dorsey v. United States of America

Southern District of Texas ENTERED March 03, 2026 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION KEITH DEWAYNE DORSEY, § § Petitioner, § V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00304 § UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, § § Respondent. § ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Jason Libby’s Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 16). The M&R recommends that the Court dismiss Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus for failure to prosecute. /d. at 3. Plaintiff filed written objections to the M&R. (D.E. 19).

When a party objects to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, the district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b)(1)(C). As to any portion for which no objection is filed, a district court reviews for clearly erroneous factual findings and conclusions of law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam).

Petitioner objects to the M&R’s application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (D.E.

19, p. 1). Petitioner asserts that he has paid the filing fee as directed by Magistrate Judge Libby, and draws the Court’s attention to an exhibit to his objections. /d. He argues his inability to pay the filing fee is due to problems with the United States Postal Service. Jd. The exhibit to his objections is a letter from his trust fund supervisor, which states that his checks for the filing fee have been returned stating an issue with the address. Jd. at 2. Although the Court sympathizes with 1/2 Petitioner’s mail difficulties, the fact of the matter is that Petitioner has still not paid the filing fee.

As the M&R explained, the Court has given him multiple opportunities to do so. (D.E. 16, p. 2).

Although Petitioner may be trying to pay the filing fee, at this juncture and given the Court has already given Petitioner two extensions, trying will not suffice. The Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objection.

Having reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the M&R, the record, the applicable law, and having made a de novo review of the portions of the M&R to which Plaintiff's objections are directed, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections, (D.E. 19), and ADOPTS the findings and conclusions of the M&R, (D.E. 16). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Petitioner’s petition for a write of habeas corpus for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Court will enter final judgment separately.

SO ORDERED.

DAVID LES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Signed: Corpus eee Texas MarchS 2026 2/2