# Brown v. Warden > District Court, E.D. Texas · September 5, 2025 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11134028 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, E.D. Texas - **Decided:** September 5, 2025 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11134028 ## Opinion text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11134028. Public record. Not legal advice.