Fabian Valdovinos-Perez v. Warden Childress

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION

FABIAN VALDOVINOS-PEREZ PETITIONER

V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-CV-684-KHJ-MTP

WARDEN CHILDRESS RESPONDENT

ORDER

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker’s [12] Report and Recommendations. The [12] Report recommends dismissing pro se Petitioner Fabian Valdovinos-Perez’s (“Valdovinos-Perez”) [4] Amended Petition. R. & R. [12] at 5. The Court adopts the [12] Report and dismisses this case. In 2015, a federal court in the Western District of Washington sentenced Valdovinos-Perez to 15 years of imprisonment and 5 years of supervised release. [12] at 1; Pet. [1] at 2; Am. Pet. [4] at 2. A decade later, Valdovinos-Perez filed his [1] Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 from the Federal Correctional Complex in Yazoo City, Mississippi. [1]. He amended the [1] Petition a few months later. Am. Pet. [4]. He said the Bureau of Prisons refused to apply time credits under the First Step Act. [1] at 1; [4] at 1. Respondent Warden Childress (“Childress”) opposed the [4] Amended Petition on two grounds: (1) Valdovinos-Perez never exhausted his administrative remedies, and (2) he is ineligible for First Step Act credits because he is serving time for an excludable offense. Answer [10]. Valdovinos-Perez responded in March 2026, rejecting both of Childress’s arguments. Resp. [11]. The [12] Report agreed with Childress’s exhaustion argument but declined to address the eligibility issue. [12] at 2–4; at 4 n.2.

Written objections to the [12] Report were due by April 23, 2026. . at 5. The [12] Report notified the parties that failure to file written objections by that date would bar further appeal in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. . But Valdovinos- Perez did not object to the [12] Report, and the deadline to do so has passed. When no party timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report, the district court applies “the ‘clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion[,] and contrary to law’ standard of review.”

, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (per curiam). And the Court need not “reiterate the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge,” , 995 F.2d 37, 40 (5th Cir. 1993) (per curiam). Finding the [12] Report neither clearly erroneous, contrary to law, nor an abuse of discretion, the Court ADOPTS the [12] Report and DISMISSES Valdovinos-Perez’s [4] Amended Petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In doing so, the Court has considered all arguments.

Those arguments not addressed would not have altered the Court’s decision. The Court will enter a separate final judgment consistent with this Order. SO ORDERED, this 28th day of April, 2026. s/ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE