Shelley v. Warden

Jul 21, 2026
5:24-cv-00063

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is Petitioner Michael Clay Shelley’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636.

On April 2, 2026, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation, recommending that Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 8) be granted and that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as moot because Federal Bureau of Prison records show that Petitioner is no longer in custody. Docket No. 9. A copy of the report and recommendation was sent to Petitioner at his last known address, return receipt requested, but was returned as undeliverable.1 Docket No. 10.

As of this date of this Order, no objections have been filed with respect to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Because no objections have been filed, Petitioner is barred from de novo review by the District Court of the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations, and, except upon grounds of plain error, 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, 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 reviewed the pleadings in this case and the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, and determines that the report and recommendation is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (where no objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.“). Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 9) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further

ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss as Moot (Docket No. 8) is GRANTED. It is further

ORDERED that the above-captioned petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED-AS-MOOT. It is further

ORDERED that any other motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby DENIED-AS-MOOT.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 21st day of July, 2026.

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Notes

1
Eastern District of Texas 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.