Williams v. Warden, FCI Texarkana

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
DARREN WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, FCI-TEXARKANA,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-CV-46-RWS-JBB
ORDER
Plaintiff Darren Williams, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled and numbered petition
for the writ of habeas corpus complaining of the computation of his sentence. Docket No. 1. The
above-captioned case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636.
After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
on December 19, 2025, recommending that the petition be dismissed as moot because Petitioner
sought a transfer to pre-release custody and records show this has now been obtained. Docket No.
11. As of this date, no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed. A previous
order sent to Petitioner at his last known address was returned as undeliverable. To date, Petitioner
has not advised the Court of his current mailing address. Local Rule CV-11(d) of the Local Rules
of Court for the Eastern District of Texas 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 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
104904, 2019 WL 2578628 (E.D. Tex., June 24, 2019).
Case 5:25-cv-00046-RWS-JBB Document 12 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 2 of 2
Because no objections have been filed, any aggrieved party 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 (5th 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 (5th 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 as he
may be entitled from the sentencing court.
.
____________________________________
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th day of February, 2026.
Case 5:25-cv-00046-RWS-JBB Document 12 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>