Jose Lopez Lugo v. Warden, FCI-Texarkana

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION JOSE LOPEZ LUGO, § § Petitioner, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-CV-131-RWS-JBB § WARDEN, FCI-TEXARKANA, § § Respondent. § ORDER Pro se Petitioner Jose Lopez Lugo filed the above-styled petition for the writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, complaining of prison disciplinary action taken against him. The case was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Petitioner claims that he was found guilty of the disciplinary offense of “possession of a dangerous tool,” a cell phone charger, and punished with the loss of 41 days of good conduct time.

Docket No. 1 at 1. He argues that a device charger does not fall within the definition of “hazardous tool” and that there is insufficient evidence to show that he possessed the charger because it was found hidden in a table leg in a common area in his cell. Id. at 2.

After an answer from Respondent, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the petition for habeas corpus be dismissed with prejudice.

Docket No. 6. Petitioner received a copy of this Report and Recommendation on December 10, 2025, but he failed to file any objections. Docket No. 7. Accordingly, he is barred from de novo review of the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Tex., 858 F.3d 348, 352 (Sth Cir. 2017).

The Court has reviewed the pleadings and documents in this cause as well as the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge. After review, the Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation 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 and Recommendation are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 6) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the above-styled petition for the writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED that all pending motions in this case are hereby DENIED.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 29th day of January, 2026.

[Dohert LU Lbrpectsr G2.

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 2 of 2