1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

COREY FREEMAN, 

#20011465, 

 Petitioner,

v. No. 3:22-cv-01910-K (BT)

DALLAS COUNTY JAIL,

 Respondent.

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Corey Freeman, a former inmate at the Dallas County Jail, filed this 

habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August 29, 2022, the Court issued 

a Consent Form (ECF No. 1) and Notice and Instructions to a Pro Se Party 

(ECF No. 2). On November 7, 2022, the Court entered an order extending 

the time for Respondent to file his response. (ECF No. 12.) Thereafter, on 

November 29, 2022, the November 7 order was returned to the Court as 

“RETURN TO SENDER, NOT IN DALLAS COUNY JAIL.” (ECF No. 15.) 

Freeman has failed to provide the Court with a current address. Therefore, 

this case should be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b). 

Rule 41(b) allows a court to dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to 

prosecute or for failure to comply with the federal rules or any court order. 

Griggs v. S.G.E. Mgmt., L.L.C., 905 F.3d 835, 844 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing

McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988) (per curiam));

accord Nottingham v. Warden, Bill Clements Unit, 837 F.3d 438, 440 (5th 

Case 3:22-cv-01910-K-BT Document 16 Filed 12/02/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 1478
2

Cir. 2016) (failure to comply with a court order); Rosin v. Thaler, 450 F. 

App’x 383, 383-84 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (failure to prosecute). “This 

authority [under Rule 41(b)] flows from the court’s inherent power to 

control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending 

cases.” Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd., 756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 

1985) (citing Link v. Wabash, R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)). 

Here, this litigation cannot proceed because Freeman has failed to 

keep the Court apprised of his current address. This case was opened on 

August 29, 2022, and that same day, the Court mailed Freeman Instructions, 

which advised him: “You must notify the Court if your address changes, or 

your case may be dismissed.” (ECF No. 2 at 1.) Freeman has failed to provide 

the Court with a current address. Without an address, the Court is unable to 

communicate with Freeman about his case. 

By failing to provide the Court with a current address, Freeman has 

failed to comply with a court order and failed to prosecute his lawsuit. 

Dismissal without prejudice is warranted under these circumstances. The 

Court should dismiss Freeman’s case without prejudice under Rule 41(b). 

SO RECOMMENDED.

Signed December 2, 2022. 

____________________________

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:22-cv-01910-K-BT Document 16 Filed 12/02/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 1479
3

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all 

parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of 

this report and recommendation must file specific written objections within 

14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV.

P. 72(b). In order 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 aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal 

conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the 

district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United 

Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).

Case 3:22-cv-01910-K-BT Document 16 Filed 12/02/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 1480