Jones v. Director, TDCJ-CID

E.D. Texas

Jones v. Director, TDCJ-CID

DecidedJune 23, 2025

Docket4:25-cv-00429

StatusUnknown

This text of Jones v. Director, TDCJ-CID (Jones v. Director, TDCJ-CID) 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

Jones v. Director, TDCJ-CID, (E.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

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

REGINALD JONES, § § Petitioner, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-429-RWS-JBB § DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, § § Respondent. §

ORDER Before the Court is Petitioner Reginald Jones’s petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the legality of his confinement. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Boone Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. On May 12, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending dismissal of the successive petition with prejudice as to its refiling without permission from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, but without prejudice as to its refiling once such permission has been obtained. Docket No. 8. It was further recommended that a certificate of appealability be denied sua sponte. Id. at 3. Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the Report on May 21, 2025 (Docket No. 10) and, 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. 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 Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Texas, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th 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 and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (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. 8) 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 as to its refiling without permission from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, but WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to its refiling once such permission has been obtained. A certificate of appealability is denied sua sponte.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 23rd day of June, 2025.

[Dohert LU Llpectsr C2. 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

REGINALD JONES, § § Petitioner, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-429-RWS-JBB § DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, § § Respondent. §

ORDER Before the Court is Petitioner Reginald Jones’s petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the legality of his confinement. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Boone Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. On May 12, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending dismissal of the successive petition with prejudice as to its refiling without permission from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, but without prejudice as to its refiling once such permission has been obtained. Docket No. 8. It was further recommended that a certificate of appealability be denied sua sponte. Id. at 3. Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the Report on May 21, 2025 (Docket No. 10) and, 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. 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 Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Texas, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th 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 and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (Sth Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (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. 8) 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 as to its refiling without permission from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, but WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to its refiling once such permission has been obtained. A certificate of appealability is denied sua sponte.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 23rd day of June, 2025.

[Dohert LU Llpectsr C2. ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jones v. Director, TDCJ-CID, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-director-tdcj-cid-txed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack