KEITHON LEON HANKINS 08763 078 v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (2025)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pro se movant Keithon Leon Hankins filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The action was referred to me in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule CV-72.

On July 31, 2025, the court entered a supplemental show cause order, requiring the government to respond to Hankins's allegation that his counsel failed to file an appeal. Dkt. 12. A copy of that order was returned as undeliverable with the notation that the post office was unable to forward the mail. Id. An independent review of the website for the Bureau of Prisons reveals that Hankins has not been in BOP custody since September 6, 2024. https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/. It has been over a year since his release, yet Hankins has failed to update the court with his address.

The exercise of the power to dismiss for failure to prosecute is committed to the sound discretion of the court; appellate review is only for abuse of that discretion. Green v. Forney Eng'g Co., 589 F.2d 243, 247 (5th Cir. 1979); Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. ISD, 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978). Not only may a district court dismiss for want of prosecution upon motion of a defendant, but it may also dismiss an action sua sponte when necessary to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of a case. Anthony v. Marion Cnty. Gen. Hosp., 617 F.2d 1164, 1167 (5th Cir. 1980). A district court may dismiss an action for failure of a litigant to prosecute or to comply with a court order. McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). In this case, Hankins has failed to update the court with his current address and has prevented the court from communicating with him regarding his case. The case should therefore be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

RECOMMENDATION

It is RECOMMENDED that the case be dismissed without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

* * *

Within 14 days after service of the magistrate judge's report, any party may serve and file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

To be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific.

Failure to file specific, written objections will bar the party from appealing the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error, provided that the party has been served with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from 10 to 14 days).

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 16th day of September, 2025.

Bill Davis United States Magistrate Judge