Anderson v. Kashner

E.D. Texas

Anderson v. Kashner

DecidedSeptember 4, 2024

Docket5:22-cv-00087

StatusUnknown

This text of Anderson v. Kashner (Anderson v. Kashner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. Kashner, (E.D. Tex. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION TSHOMBE ANDERSON § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-CV-87-RWS-JBB WARDEN, FCI-TEXARKANA § ORDER Before the Court is Petitioner Tshombe Anderson’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 complaining of the calculation of his sentence. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Boone Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. On July 24, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending dismissal of the petition as moot. Docket No. 25. According to the Magistrate Judge, Petitioner “seeks release from confinement and early placement on supervised release, but he has already been released to supervised release; thus, the Court cannot provide the relief he seeks.” Id. at 5. Because there is no relief which the Court can grant to Petitioner, and no possibility that this Court can alter Petitioner’s period of supervised release, the Magistrate Judge concluded Petitioner’s release from confinement to supervised release has rendered this petition moot. Id. The Magistrate Judge recommends the petition be dismissed on this basis. Id. at 6 (citing Herndon v. Upton, 985 F.3d 443, 446-47 (5th Cir. 2021)). Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the Report on July 30, 2024. Docket No. 26. To date, no objections have been filed. 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 (Sth 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 is ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 25) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the above-captioned petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED- AS-MOOT.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 4th day of September, 2024.

[Dohert LU Llpectsr G2. ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION TSHOMBE ANDERSON § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-CV-87-RWS-JBB WARDEN, FCI-TEXARKANA § ORDER Before the Court is Petitioner Tshombe Anderson’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 complaining of the calculation of his sentence. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Boone Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. On July 24, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending dismissal of the petition as moot. Docket No. 25. According to the Magistrate Judge, Petitioner “seeks release from confinement and early placement on supervised release, but he has already been released to supervised release; thus, the Court cannot provide the relief he seeks.” Id. at 5. Because there is no relief which the Court can grant to Petitioner, and no possibility that this Court can alter Petitioner’s period of supervised release, the Magistrate Judge concluded Petitioner’s release from confinement to supervised release has rendered this petition moot. Id. The Magistrate Judge recommends the petition be dismissed on this basis. Id. at 6 (citing Herndon v. Upton, 985 F.3d 443, 446-47 (5th Cir. 2021)). Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the Report on July 30, 2024. Docket No. 26. To date, no objections have been filed. 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 (Sth 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 is ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 25) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the above-captioned petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED- AS-MOOT.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 4th day of September, 2024.

[Dohert LU Llpectsr G2. ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Anderson v. Kashner, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-kashner-txed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack