Jesus Alberto Gonzalez v. Warden Childress

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION

JESUS ALBERTO GONZALEZ PETITIONER

V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-CV-867-KHJ-MTP

WARDEN CHILDRESS RESPONDENT

ORDER

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker’s [13] Report and Recommendation. R. & R. [13]. The [13] Report recommends dismissing without prejudice pro se Petitioner Jesus Alberto Gonzalez’s (“Gonzalez”) [1] Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. at 1. Gonzalez is an inmate at the Federal Correctional Complex in Yazoo City, Mississippi. Pet. [1] at 2. He contends the First Step Act (“FSA”) entitles him to time credit which the Bureau of Prisons refuses to apply to his sentence. at 3–4. Respondent Warden Childress opposes the relief because Gonzalez has not exhausted his administrative remedies and because Gonzalez has received all the FSA credits he is due. Resp. [11] at 1. The [13] Report recommends dismissing the [1] Petition without prejudice because Gonzalez has not exhausted his administrative remedies and has failed to demonstrate any extraordinary circumstances that would warrant waiving the exhaustion requirement. [13] at 4. Written objections to the [13] Report were due by June 15, 2026. at 4– 5. The [13] 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. No party objected to the [13] Report, and the time to do so has passed. The Court must review de novo a magistrate judge’s report only when a party

objects to the report within 14 days after being served with a copy. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no party timely objects to the report, the 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). Finding the [13] Report neither clearly erroneous, contrary to law, nor an abuse of discretion, the Court ADOPTS the [13] Report and DISMISSES this case

without prejudice. In doing so, the Court has considered all arguments raised. 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 23rd day of June, 2026. s/ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE