Garley v. Boyd

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 6:25-cv-00062 Document16- Filed 04/22/26 in TXSD Page1of2
United States District Court

Southem District of Texas
ENTERED
Apni 23, 2026
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
VICTORIA DIVISION
§
CLIFTON JAMES GARLEY, III, §
§
Petitioner, §
§
V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:25-CV-00062
§
SHERIFF RAY BOYD, §
§
Respondent.

ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM & RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Julie K. Hampton’s Memorandum and
Recommendation (“M&R”). (D.E. 13). The M&R recommends that the Court dismiss Petitioner’s
§ 2241 petition without prejudice for want of prosecution. /d. at 2.

The parties were provided proper notice of,! and the opportunity to object to, the Magistrate
Judge’s M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); General Order No. 2002-13. No
objection has been filed. When no timely objection has been filed, the district court need only
determine whether the Magistrate Judge’s M&R is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. United
States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Powell v. Litton Loan
Servicing, L.P., No. 4:14-CV-02700, 2015 WL 3823 141, at *1 (S.D. Tex. June 18, 2015) (Harmon,
J.) (citation omitted).

Having reviewed the proposed findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, the filings

of the Parties, the record, and the applicable law, and finding that the M&R is not clearly erroneous

' Plaintiff's mail was returned as undeliverable. Since then, the Court has waited an appropriate amount of
time for an updated address. As a party, Plaintiff is required to keep the Court apprised of his current address
at all times and has failed to do so. LOCAL RULE 83.4: see also Martinez-Reyes v. United States, No. 7:12-
CR-1787-1, 2016 WL 8740494, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2016) (Ormsby, Mag. J.) (collecting cases),
adopted, No. CR M-12-1787-1, 2017 WL 1409315 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2017) (Crane, C.J.).

aureenrichls
U.S. GOVERNMENT

INFORMATION
GPO

Case 6:25-cv-00062 Document16- Filed 04/22/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2

or contrary to law, the Court ADOPTS the M&R in its entirety. (D.E. 13). Accordingly, the Court
DISMISSES Petitioner’s § 2241 petition without prejudice. (D-E. 1).
The Court will enter final judgment separately.

SO ORDERED.

DAVID._SSMORALES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Signed: Corpus Christi, Texas
April 227% 2026

2/2