Dorsey v. United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRlCT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRlSTI DIVISION
KEITH DEWAYNE DORSEY, 	§
§
§	Petitioner,
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERlCA,
Respondent.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00304
§
§
§
§
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. Id. 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)(l)(C). As
to any portion for which no objection is filed, a district court reviews for clearly erroneous factual
findings and conclusions oflaw. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th 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. Id. He argues his inability to pay
the filing fee is due to problems with the United States Postal Service. Id. 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. I d. at 2. Although the Court sympathizes with
1/2
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 03, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:25-cv-00304 Document 20 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 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 Plaintiffs
objections are directed, 28 U.S .C. § 636(b)(l)(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.
Signed: Corpus C.!rr ~ i, Texas
Marc~ - ~ 	026
2 / 2
DAVID 	LES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cv-00304 Document 20 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2