Serwan Mizori v. Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION SERWAN MIZORI PETITIONER V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-CV-471-KHJ-MTP WARDEN RESPONDENT

ORDER Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker’s [13] Report and Recommendation. R. & R. [13]. The [13] Report recommends dismissing without prejudice pro se Petitioner Serwan Mizori’s (“Mizori”) [1] Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. . at 1.

Mizori is an inmate at the Federal Correctional Complex in Yazoo City, Mississippi. Pet. [1] at 1. He says he has time credit under the First Step Act, and the Bureau of Prisons will not count it. . at 2–3, 6. Respondent Warden opposes the relief, among other reasons, because Mizori failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Am. Resp. [12] at 2.

The [13] Report recommends dismissing the [1] Petition without prejudice because Mizori failed to exhaust his administrative remedies or identify any extraordinary circumstances warranting waiver of the exhaustion requirement. [13] at 6.1 Written objections to the [13] Report were due by March 16, 2026. . at 6.

1 The Clerk of Court mailed a copy of the [13] Report to Mizori at his address of record on March 2, 2026.

The [13] Report notified the parties that failure to file written objections by that date would bar further appeal in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. . No party objected to the [13] Report, and the time to do so has passed.

The Court must review de novo a magistrate judge’s report only when a party objects to the report within 14 days after being served with a copy. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no party timely objects to the report, the Court applies “the ‘clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law’ standard of review.” , 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).

Finding the [13] Report neither clearly erroneous, contrary to law, nor an abuse of discretion, the Court ADOPTS the [13] Report and DISMISSES this case without prejudice. In doing so, the Court has considered all arguments raised.

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 24th day of March, 2026. s/ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE