Jose Manuel Cavazos, II v. FCI Texarkana Warden

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: December 29, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-00115
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

JOSE MANUEL CAVAZOS, II, § § Petitioner, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-CV-115-RWS-JBB § FCI TEXARKANA WARDEN, § § Respondent. §

ORDER Before the Court is Petitioner Jose Cavazos’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. On September 29, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation, recommending the above-captioned petition be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the Court. Docket No. 5 at 2. A copy of the Report and Recommendation was sent to Petitioner at his last known address, return receipt requested, but no acknowledgement has been received. On November 21, 2025, the Court entered an order allowing Petitioner an additional 14 to file any objections. Docket No. 8 (noting the case had been stayed from October 9, 2025 through November 14, 2025 due to a lapse in appropriations for funding the Department of Justice). A copy of the November 21 Order was sent to Petitioner at his last known address, return receipt requested. Again, no acknowledgement has been received. The Fifth Circuit has explained that where a letter is properly placed in the United States mail, a presumption exists that the letter “reached its destination in the usual time and was actually received by the person to whom it was addressed.” Faciane v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 931 F.3d 412, 420-21 & n.9 (Sth Cir. 2019) (quoting United States v. Ekong, 518 F.3d 285, 286-87 (Sth Cir. 2007)). To date, no party has filed objections to the September 29, 2025 Report and Recommendation. 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. Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, No. 4:21-CV-00203-RAS, 2021 WL 3287683, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 31, 2021). Moreover, except upon grounds of plain error, Petitioner may not seek appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. See id.; Duarte v. City of Lewisville, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (Sth Cir. 2017). 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. 5) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. It is further ORDERED that the above-captioned petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute or to obey an order of the Court. So ORDERED and SIGNED this 29th day of December, 2025.

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

Page 2 of 2