HAB54\R&R\MATHIS-18.MOOT-RLS:2

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

VICTOR MATHIS, §

§

Petitioner, §

§

v. § 2:06-CV-0018

§

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, §

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, §

Correctional Institutions Division, §

§

Respondent. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO DENY PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT

Came for consideration the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State

Custody filed by petitioner VICTOR MATHIS. By his habeas application, petitioner challenges

his continued incarceration despite a mandate from the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to

release him. Petitioner requests this Court order his immediate release to parole.

The copy of the Order transferring petitioner’s habeas application to this Court from the

Dallas Division Court was returned with the notation “RTS Out of System.” Inquiry on this date

to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, revealed

petitioner was, in fact, released to parole on December 8, 2005. Petitioner, therefore, has

obtained the relief he seeks pursuant to the instant habeas application. Consequently, the instant

petition is moot under the continuing case and controversy requirement.

RECOMMENDATION

It is the RECOMMENDATION of the United States Magistrate Judge to the United

 

 Case 2:06-cv-00018-J Document 9 Filed 02/06/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID 37
HAB54\R&R\MATHIS-18.MOOT-RLS:2 Page 2 of 2

States District Judge that the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody

filed by petitioner VICTOR MATHIS be, in all things, DENIED. 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE

The United States District Clerk is directed to send a file-marked copy of this Report and

Recommendation to petitioner by the most efficient means available. 

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. 

ENTERED this 6th day of February 2006.

 _______________________________

 CLINTON E. AVERITTE

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

* NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT *

Any party may object to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation. In

the event a party wishes to object, they are hereby NOTIFIED that the deadline for filing

objections is eleven (11) days from the date of filing as indicated by the file mark on the first

page of this recommendation. Service is complete upon mailing, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b), and the

parties are allowed a 3-day service by mail extension, Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e). Therefore, any

objections must be filed on or before the fourteenth (14th) day after this recommendation is

filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); R. 4(a)(1) of Miscellaneous Order No. 6, as 

authorized by Local Rule 3.1, Local Rules of the United States District Courts for the Northern

District of Texas. 

Any such objections shall be made in a written pleading entitled “Objections to the

Report and Recommendation.” Objecting parties shall file the written objections with the United

States District Clerk and serve a copy of such objections on all other parties. A party’s failure to

timely file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation

contained in this report shall bar an aggrieved party, except upon grounds of plain error, from

attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings, legal conclusions, and

recommendation set forth by the Magistrate Judge in this report and accepted by the district

court. See Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996);

Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th Cir. 1988).

 

 Case 2:06-cv-00018-J Document 9 Filed 02/06/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID 38