Alexander M. Kingston v. Warden, FCI-Texarkana

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION ALEXANDER M. KINGSTON, § § Petitioner, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-CV-28-RWS-JBB § WARDEN, FCI-TEXARKANA, § § Respondent. § ORDER Before the Court is Petitioner Alexander M. Kingston’s petition for writ of habeas corpus complaining of the computation of his sentence. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636.

On February 17, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending the above- styled petition for the writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as moot. Docket No. 11. A copy of the Report was sent to Petitioner at his last known address but was returned as undeliverable. To date, Petitioner has not advised the Court of his current mailing address. Local Rule CV-11(d) 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 WL 2578628 (E.D. Tex. June 24, 2019).

Because no objections have been filed, Petitioner 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 to which he may be entitled from the sentencing court.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 18th day of March, 2026.

[Dohert LU Llrpectsr C2.

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