govinfo:USCOURTS-txed-5_24-cv-00060-0

1 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
TEXARKANA DIVISION 
HENRY LAMAR ROSS § 
 § 
 Movant § 
 § 
v. § Case No. 5:24cv60-JRG-JBB 
 § 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § 
 § 
 Respondent § 
ORDERADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 
Movant Henry Ross, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled and numbered motion to vacate 
or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging the legality of his conviction. The case was 
referred to the United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. 
Movant was convicted in a jury trial of guilty of possession of a firearm and ammunition as a 
prohibited person. He was found not guilty of possession with intent to distribute a controlled 
substance and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense. After a sentencing 
hearing, Movant received a sentence of 80 months in prison. 
Movant took a direct appeal, in which he argued that there was insufficient evidence to support 
the findings at sentencing that he was on parole at the time of the offense and that a substance found 
in a backpack was marijuana. He also maintained that his sentence was unreasonable and that the 
reading of the superseding indictment had not been transcribed in the record although the transcript 
says that the indictment was read in open court. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Movant’s 
arguments and affirmed his conviction. United States v. Ross, slip op. no. 22-40431, 2023 WL 2964421 
(5th Cir. 2023). 
In his § 2255 motion, Movant argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in a 
number of particulars and, in a motion to supplement, added a claim that the search of his car had been 
unconstitutional. The Government filed a response, to which Movant filed a reply. PageID #: 
<pageID>
2 
After review of the pleadings and records, including the testimony at trial, the Magistrate Judge 
issued a Report and Recommendation on April 30, 2026, recommending that the motion to vacate or 
correct sentence be dismissed. Docket No . 15. The Magistrate Judge set out the legal standards for 
evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel claims and reviewed each of Movant’s grounds for relief 
under these standards, concluding that none of these demonstrated that Movant’s counsel acted 
deficiently or that any such deficient performance had prejudiced the defense. The Magistrate Judge 
also recommended denial of a certificate of appealability. 
A copy of this Report and Recommendation was sent to Movant at his last known address but 
was returned with the notation that Movant was not at the facility. To date, Movant has not advised the 
Court of his current mailing address. Local Rule CV-11(d) of the Local Rules of Court for the Eastern 
District of Texas requires that a pro se litigant must provide the Court with a physical address and is 
responsible for keeping the Clerk of Court advised in writing of his current physical address. The Court 
has no duty to locate litigants who do not keep the court apprised of their current address. Ashlock v. 
Kelley, civil action no. 5:17cv209, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104904, 2019 WL 2578628 (E.D.Tex., June 
24, 2019). 
Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation have been filed, 
Movant is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions, and 
recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to 
factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. Duarte v. City of 
Lewisville, Texas, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017). 
The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Report and Recommendation of the 
Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge 
is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 
(1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly PageID #: 
<pageID>
3 
erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). It is accordingly 
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 15) is 
ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further 
ORDERED that the above-styled motion to vacate or correct sentence is DISMISSED WITH 
PREJUDICE. It is further 
ORDERED that Movant is denied a certificate of appealability sua sponte . Finally, it is 
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby DENIED. 
.
____________________________________
RODNEY GILSTRAP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 2nd day of June, 2026. PageID #: 
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight