McElroy v. Department of Corrections

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
JEREL McELROY 	PETITIONER
v. 	Case No. 4:25-cv-04090
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 	RESPONDENT
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On January 30, 2025, Petitioner Jerel McElroy (“McElroy”) filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	ECF No. 1. 	McElroy filed an Amended Petition on February 11,
2025. ECF No. 2.
On October 23, 2025, this matter was transferred to this Court from the United States District
Court for the District of New Mexico. ECF No. 5. McElroy’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
(“IFP”) was granted on October 24, 2025. ECF No. 6.
After a review of the Amended Petition, it was unclear what conviction McElroy was
challenging. Because of this, the Court entered an Order on October 27, 2025, requesting McElroy
to provide additional information regarding his challenge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No.
8. McElroy was directed to supply this information to this Court by November 28, 2025. Id. He
was also informed that failure to comply with this Order may result in dismissal of the Amended
Petition. Id.
On November 3, 2025, mail containing the notice of the case being transferred and the Order
granting IFP was returned as undeliverable from the SWACCC marked “return to sender unable to
forward.” ECF No. 9. 	On November 17, 2005, mail containing the Order that McElroy provide
additional information was returned as undeliverable from the SWACCC marked “return to sender
not at facility.” ECF No. 10.
Case 4:25-cv-04090-SOH Document 11 Filed 12/02/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
McElroy has failed to provide a new address and has not communicated with the Court since
he filed his Amended Petition on February 11, 2025. 	Finally, McElroy has yet to respond to the
Court Order that he provide additional information regarding his challenge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241.
Accordingly, the Court recommends this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to follow an order of this Court
and failure to prosecute this action. See F ED. R. C IV. P. 41(b). See also Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 82
S.Ct. 1386 (1962) (recognizing that consistent with Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, a district court has the “inherent power” to dismiss a case sua sponte without affording
notice or providing a hearing).
The Parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation
in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 	The Parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990).
DATED this 2nd day of December 2025.
/s/ Spencer G. Singleton
HONORABLE SPENCER G. SINGLETON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-04090-SOH Document 11 Filed 12/02/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>