IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION SHAWN LOUIS SUTTER § Plaintiff § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22cv46-RWS WARDEN S. SALMONSON § Defendant § ORDER Petitioner Shawn Louis Sutter, proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

, challenging a prison disciplinary conviction he received at the Federal Correctional Institution in Texarkana, Texas that resulted in the loss of good conduct time. Docket No. 1. The Court referred this matter to the Honorable J. Boone Baxter, United States Magistrate Judge, for consideration pursuant to

. On September 6, 2022, Respondent filed his Response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion to Dismiss.

Docket No. 9. After considering Respondent’s motion, Petitioner’s response, and Respondent’s reply, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report on January 8, 2025, recommending that the petition be denied and that this matter be dismissed with prejudice. See Docket No. 24. As of this date, no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed. Because no objections have been filed, Plaintiff is barred from de novo review by the District Court of the Magistrate Judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Moreover, except upon grounds of plain error, an aggrieved party is barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville,

(5th Cir. 2017); Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, Case No. 4:21-CV-00203-RAS,

, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021). The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this case and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson,

(Sth Cir.), cert. denied,

(1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s report are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law’). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 24) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 9) is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that this petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 10th day of February, 2025.

[dohert LU Lbrpectsr C2. ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE