Daniel Rivera Fregoso v. Warden, FCI-Texarkana

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION DANIEL RIVERA FREGOSO, § § Petitioner, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-CV-121-RWS-JBB § WARDEN, FCI-TEXARKANA, § § Respondent. § ORDER Before the Court is Petitioner Daniel Rivera Fregoso’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 that Petitioner’s 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. 6. A copy of the report and recommendation was sent to Petitioner at his last known address, return receipt requested, but was returned as undeliverable.1 Docket No. 7.

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., Local Rule CV-11(d) requires that pro se litigants must provide the Court with a physical address and is responsible for keeping the Clerk of Court advised in writing of his current physical address. 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 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 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 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 motions which may be pending in this action are hereby DENIED- AS-MOOT.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 2nd day of April, 2026.

[Dohert LU Llrpectsr G2.

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