David Medrano v. Warden Salmonson

E.D. Texas

David Medrano v. Warden Salmonson

DecidedFebruary 9, 2026

Docket5:23-cv-00054

StatusUnknown

This text of David Medrano v. Warden Salmonson (David Medrano v. Warden Salmonson) 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

David Medrano v. Warden Salmonson, (E.D. Tex. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

DAVID MEDRANO, § § Petitioner, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-CV-54-RWS-JBB § WARDEN SALMONSON, § § Respondent. §

ORDER Before the Court is Petitioner David Medrano’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which challenges a prison disciplinary action taken against him. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. On November 25, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending the above-captioned petition for the writ of habeas corpus be dismissed with prejudice. Docket No. 13 at 6. Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the Report and Recommendation on December 3, 2025. Docket No. 14. 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, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th 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 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. 13) 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 WITH PREJUDICE. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th day of February, 2026.

[ache t+ LO Clriecle. □□□ 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

DAVID MEDRANO, § § Petitioner, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-CV-54-RWS-JBB § WARDEN SALMONSON, § § Respondent. §

ORDER Before the Court is Petitioner David Medrano’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which challenges a prison disciplinary action taken against him. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. On November 25, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending the above-captioned petition for the writ of habeas corpus be dismissed with prejudice. Docket No. 13 at 6. Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the Report and Recommendation on December 3, 2025. Docket No. 14. 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, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th 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 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. 13) 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 WITH PREJUDICE. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th day of February, 2026.

[ache t+ LO Clriecle. □□□ ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

David Medrano v. Warden Salmonson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-medrano-v-warden-salmonson-txed-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack