Margaret O’Connor v. Warden, Karnes County Immigration Processing Center; Field...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION MARGARET O’CONNOR, § § Petitioner, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-25-CV-947-FB § WARDEN, KARNES COUNTY § IMMIGRATION PROCESSING CENTER; § FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, SAN ANTONIO § FIELD OFFICE ENFORCEMENT AND § REMOVAL OPERATIONS U.S. § IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS § ENFORCEMENT; PAMELA BONDI, U.S. § Attorney General; and DIRECTOR, U.S. § CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, § § Respondents. § ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The Court has considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed in the above-captioned cause on December 3, 2025 (docket entry no.18). According to the CM/ECF system, the Report and Recommendation was electronically transmitted to all of the parties on December 3, 2025. To date, the docket reflects no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been received.1 Because no party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("A judge of the court shall Any party who desires to object to a Magistrate's findings and recommendations must serve and file his, her or its written objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the findings and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 635(b)(1).

If service upon a party is made by mailing a copy to the party's last known address, “service is complete upon mailing .” FED. R. CIV. P. 5(b)(2)(C). If service is made by electronic means, “service is complete upon transmission.” Id. at (E). When the mode of service is by electronic means, three days are no longer added to the time period to act after being served. See Heverling v. McNeil Consumer Pharmaceuticals, Co., Civil Action No. 1:17-CV-1433, 2018 WL 1293304 at *2 n.3 (M.D. make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made."). The Court has reviewed the Report and finds its reasoning to be neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989), The Recommendation shall therefore be accepted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that the Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner Margaret O’Connor (docket entry no. 1) shall be DENIED.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed in this cause on December 3, 2025 (docket entry no.18), is ACCEPTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that the Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petition Margaret O’Connor (docket entry no. 1) is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that motions pending, if any, are also DISMISSED, and this case is now CLOSED.

It is so ORDERED.

SIGNED this 30th day of December, 2025.

jeer C a FRED BIERY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -2-