Pappas v. FCI Berlin, Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Markos N. Pappas
v. 	Civil No. 18-cv-1110-LM
Robert Hazelwood, Warden
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Markos Pappas initiated this case by filing a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1), pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241, while he was an inmate at the Federal
Correctional Institution in Berlin, New Hampshire (“FCI-
Berlin”). 	Pappas subsequently filed a motion to amend his
petition (Doc. No. 3), a motion for a hearing on bail (Doc. No.
4), and two supplements (Doc. Nos. 5, 6) to his petition.
Pappas last filed a document in this case on March 19, 2019.
On April 9, 2019, Pappas called the clerk’s office stating
that he had been released from incarceration and that he
therefore intended to voluntarily dismiss this case, and would
file a notice to that effect. 	When Pappas did not file a notice
of voluntary dismissal, the court issued an Order directing
Pappas to provide the court with an updated mailing address if
he seeks to continue to prosecute this action. 	See June 17,
Case 1:18-cv-01110-LM Document 9 Filed 08/13/19 Page 1 of 3

2
2019 Order (Doc. No. 7) (“June 17 Order”). 	That Order also
warned Pappas that his failure to respond could result in the
dismissal of this case. 1 	Pappas has not filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal, 	provided the court with an updated address
since being released from prison, or otherwise responded to the
June 17 Order.
“A district court, as part of its inherent power to manage
its own docket, may dismiss a case for any of the reasons
prescribed in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) . . .”
Torres-Álamo v. Puerto Rico, 502 F.3d 20, 25 (1st Cir. 2007)).
Rule 41(b) lists, among other things, a plaintiff’s failure to
prosecute as a basis for dismissal. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
The record in this case reflects Pappas’s intent to abandon this
matter, and the district judge should dismiss this case without
prejudice, for failure to prosecute, and terminate the pending
motions to amend the petition (Doc. No. 3) and for a bail
hearing (Doc. No. 4).
1 Pappas’s copy of the court’s June 17, 2019 Order was mailed
to the prison, as Pappas has not provided the court with an
updated mailing address, and was returned to the court
undelivered. 	A party appearing before the court “is under a
continuing duty to notify the clerk’s office of any change of
address and telephone number. 	Counsel or pro se parties who
fail to provide the clerk’s office with their current address in
accordance with this rule are not entitled to notice.” 	LR
83.6(e).
Case 1:18-cv-01110-LM Document 9 Filed 08/13/19 Page 2 of 3

3
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be
filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. 	See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	The fourteen-day period may be extended
upon motion. 	Failure to file specific written objections to the
Report and Recommendation within the specified time waives the
right to appeal the district court’s order. 	See Santos-Santos
v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
August 13, 2019
cc: 	Markos N. Pappas, pro se
Case 1:18-cv-01110-LM Document 9 Filed 08/13/19 Page 3 of 3