Luis Longoria v. FCI Texarkana Warden

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION LUIS LONGORIA, § § Petitioner, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-CV-131-RWS-JBB § FCI TEXARKANA WARDEN, § § Respondent. § ORDER Before the Court is Petitioner Luis Longoria’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636.

On January 7, 2026, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending the above application for the writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the Court. Docket No. 5. A copy of the Report and Recommendation was sent to Petitioner at his last known address, return receipt requested, but no acknowledgement has been received. The Fifth Circuit has explained that where a letter is properly placed in the United States mail, a presumption exists that the letter reached its destination in the usual time and was actually received by the person to whom it was addressed. Faciane v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 931 F.3d 412, 420– and n.9 (5th Cir. 2019).

Petitioner did not file any objections to the January 7, 2026 Report and Recommendation.

Because no objections have been received, Petitioner is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of the magistrate judge’s proposed 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. See Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Tex., 858 F.3d 348, 352 (Sth Cir. 2017); Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, 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. 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. 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 of the magistrate judge (Docket No. 5) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED the above-captioned Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Docket No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the Court.

It is further ORDERED that all pending motions in this case are DENIED-AS-MOOT.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 18th day of March, 2026.

[Dohert LU Llpectsr G2.

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