Johnson v. Warden, Texarkana FCI

District Court, E.D. Texas

Johnson v. Warden, Texarkana FCI

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

CHARLES E. JOHNSON, § § Petitioner, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-CV-147-RWS-JBB § WARDEN, FCI-TEXARKANA, § § Respondent. §

ORDER Before the Court is Petitioner Charles E. Johnson’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2241

challenging the legality of his sentence. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter in accordance with

28 U.S.C. § 636

. On August 19, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 15), recommending the above-styled petition for the writ of habeas corpus be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the Report on August 22, 2025. Docket No. 16. To date, no objections have been filed. Because no objections have been filed, any aggrieved party is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of the Magistrate Judge’s proposed 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, Texas,

858 F.3d 348, 352

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

2021 WL 3287683

, 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 that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson,

864 F.2d 1219, 1221

(Sth 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 erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 15) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the above-captioned petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of jurisdiction. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th day of September, 2025.

[ache t+ LO Clrreche. □□□ ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

Reference

Status
Unknown