UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION

JOSE MANUEL OLVERA-GARCIA PETITIONER V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-CV-276-KHJ-MTP UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEFENDANT

ORDER Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker’s [10] Report and Recommendation. The [10] Report recommends dismissing pro se Petitioner Jose Manuel Olvera-Garcia’s (“Olvera-Garcia”) [1] Petition. R. & R. [10] at 4. For the reasons stated below, the Court adopts the [10] Report and dismisses this case. I. Background Olvera-Garcia is incarcerated with the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) at the Federal Correctional Complex in Yazoo City, Mississippi. Pet. [1] at 4. He was sentenced to an 87-month term of imprisonment in May 2021. See Inmate Data [8- 2] at 2. He filed this [1] Petition in April 2025 arguing that BOP refused to apply the First Step Act (“FSA”) time credit to his sentence. [1] at 2-3; see also

. In response, the United States argued that Olvera-Garcia was not entitled to FSA credit because “he is subject to a final order of removal.” Resp. in Opp’n [8] at 2; Final Administrative Removal Order [8-3]. In reply, Olvera-Garcia argued that

he was entitled to FSA credits because he was only subject to an “Administrative Order of Removal,” not a “Final Order of Removal.” Pet.’s Reply [9] at 1-2. Magistrate Judge Parker agreed with the United States and rejected Olvera- Garcia’s argument. [10]. Olvera-Garcia timely objected to the [10] Report. Obj. [11]. This Court now takes up the [10] Report and Olvera-Garcia’s [11] Objection. II. Standard When no party timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report, the district court applies “the ‘clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion|,] and contrary to law’ standard of review.” United States v. Wilson,

(th Cir. 1989) (per curiam). But when a party objects to portions of the report, the district court must review those portions de novo.

(b)(1). Even so, courts need not “reiterate the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge,” Koetting v. Thompson,

(5th Cir. 1993) (per curiam), or consider “[f]rivolous, conclusivel,] or general objections... .” Nettles v. Wainwright,

, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,

(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). And parties cannot “raise a factual objection by merely reurging arguments contained in” previous filings. Edmond v. Collins,

, 293 n.7 (5th Cir. 1993). III. Analysis The Court overrules Olvera-Garcia’s [11] Objection, adopts the [10] Report, and dismisses the [1] Petition. Olvera-Garcia is subject to a final order of removal.

See [8-3]. And “a prisoner is ineligible to apply time credits . . . if the prisoner is the subject of a final order of removal under any provision of the immigration laws.”

(d)(4)(E)@). For that reason, the [10] Report correctly concluded that Olvera-Garcia was ineligible for FSA credits. [10] at 4. In his [11] Objection, Olvera-Garcia argues that the [8-3] Order is not a final removal order because it is not signed by a judge. [11] at 2. He says the [8-3] Order is “simply an ICE detainer for ‘[plossible deportation.” Jd. Olvera-Garcia made the same argument in his [9] Reply. [9] at 2. And the [10] Report rejected it. [10] at 3. So does this Court. A final order of removal is an “order ‘concluding that the alien is deportable or ordering deportation.” Nasrallah v. Barr,

(2020) (quoting

(a)(47)(A)). Under Nasrallah, the [8-3] Order is a final order of removal. /d. And any challenge to the validity of the [8-3] Order is precluded by the REAL ID Act, which eliminates district court review of final removal orders under

. See

(a)(5), 1252(b)(2). Olvera-Garcia is therefore ineligible for FSA time credits. As a result, the Court adopts the [10] Report and dismisses Olvera-Garcia’s [1] Petition. IV. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, the Court OVERRULES Olvera-Garcia’s [11] Objection, ADOPTS the [10] Report, and DISMISSES Olvera-Garcia’s [1] Petition with prejudice. In doing so, the Court has considered all the parties’ arguments. Those arguments not addressed would not have altered the Court’s decision. The Court will enter a separate final judgment consistent with this Order.

SO ORDERED, this 17th day December, 2025. s/ Kristi H. Johnson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE