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”
How later courts described this case
- 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”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
JERRY RAY BROWN, §
§
Petitioner, §
§
v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-CV-43-RWS-JBB
§
FCI TEXARKANA WARDEN, §
§
Respondent. §
ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner Jerry Ray Brown’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the computation of First Step Act time credits and how those credits
were applied to his sentence. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge J. Boone Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. On July 29, 2025, the Magistrate Judge
issued a report and recommendation, recommending dismissal of the petition as moot because
Petitioner has been released from Bureau of Prisons custody, and no further habeas corpus
remedies are available to him from this Court. Docket No. 12 at 2. It was further recommended
that the dismissal should not prevent Petitioner from seeking such relief as he may be entitled to
from the sentencing court. Id.
A copy of the Report and Recommendation was sent to Petitioner at his last known address,
but no objections have been received to date. 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, 420–21 & 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. See
Duarte v. City of Lewisville, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (Sth Cir. 2017). Moreover, except upon grounds
of plain error, an aggrieved party is barred from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual
findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. See id.; 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. Upon such review, the Court has determined 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 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. 12)
is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. It is further
ORDERED that the above-captioned petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED
AS MOOT. The dismissal of this petition shall not prevent Petitioner from seeking such relief as
he may be entitled from the sentencing court.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 5th day of September, 2025.
[ache t+ LO Clriecle. □□□
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 2 of 2