RODNEY JACKSON 78668 v. SHERIFF OF GRAYSON COUNTY (2026)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Proceeding pro se, Rodney D. Jackson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to me in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule CV-72.

A copy of an order that was sent to Jackson at the address he provided has been returned to the court marked “INMATE NOT IN CUSTODY; RELEASED 7-10-24.” Dkt. 8. It is Jackson's responsibility to notify the clerk of court of his current physical mailing address. See Loc. R. CV-11(d). The form he completed conspicuously warned him of his “responsibility to inform the court of any change of address and its effective date,” adding that “[f]ailure to file a NOTICE TO THE COURT OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS may result in the dismissal of your complaint pursuant to Rule 41(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Dkt. 1 at 2. Because Jackson has not updated his address with the court, he has failed to prosecute his case.

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. Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629–31 (1962); 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, Jackson has failed to update the court with his current address and has prevented the court from communicating with him regarding his case. Therefore, the case should be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

RECOMMENDATION

It is RECOMMENDED that the case be dismissed without prejudice.

* * *

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 April, 2026.

Bill Davis United States Magistrate Judge