Patrick Hurd v. Sheriff, Bowie County

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION PATRICK HURD § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:26-CV-9-JRG-JBB

SHERIFF, BOWIE COUNTY § ORDER The Petitioner Patrick Hurd, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed this petition for the writ of habeas corpus. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636.

On February 17, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending Petitioner’s application for the writ of habeas corpus be dismissed with prejudice as duplicative of his pending case no. 5:25cv166-RWS-JBB. Docket No. 4. A copy of the Report was sent to Petitioner at his last known address, return receipt requested, but no objections have 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 Company of Canada, 931 F.3d 412, 420-21 and n.9 (5th Cir. 2019).

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, 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 of the Magistrate Judge.

Upon such review, the Court has determined the Report 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 are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). Accordingly, it 1s ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 4) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the above-styled application for the writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice as duplicative of Petitioner’s pending case no. 5:25cv166. The dismissal of the present petition shall not prevent Petitioner from fully litigating his claims in that case. It is further ORDERED that Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability sua sponte. The denial of the certificate of appealability relates only to an appeal of the present case and should have no effect upon Petitioner’s right to litigate his claims in cause no. 5:25cv166.

So Ordered this Mar 18, 2026 RODNEY GIL | RAP \ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE