Jose Ortega v. Warden, FCI-Texarkana

E.D. Texas

Jose Ortega v. Warden, FCI-Texarkana

DecidedDecember 12, 2025

Docket5:23-cv-00107

StatusUnknown

This text of Jose Ortega v. Warden, FCI-Texarkana (Jose Ortega v. Warden, FCI-Texarkana) 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

Jose Ortega v. Warden, FCI-Texarkana, (E.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION JOSE ORTEGA, § § Petitioner, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-CV-107-RWS-JBB § WARDEN, FCI-TEXARKANA, § § Respondent. § ORDER Before the Court is Petitioner Jose Ortega’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the legality of his sentence. 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 9, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 12), recommending the above-styled petition for the writ of habeas corpus be dismissed. Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the Report on September 12, 2025. Docket No. 13. To date, no objections have been filed. Because no objections have been filed, any aggrieved party 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. 12) 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 12th day of December, 2025.

focher t+ LU Clrrwechs. G2. ROBERT W. SCHROEDER II 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 JOSE ORTEGA, § § Petitioner, § § v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-CV-107-RWS-JBB § WARDEN, FCI-TEXARKANA, § § Respondent. § ORDER Before the Court is Petitioner Jose Ortega’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the legality of his sentence. 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 9, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 12), recommending the above-styled petition for the writ of habeas corpus be dismissed. Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the Report on September 12, 2025. Docket No. 13. To date, no objections have been filed. Because no objections have been filed, any aggrieved party 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. 12) 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 12th day of December, 2025.

focher t+ LU Clrrwechs. G2. ROBERT W. SCHROEDER II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jose Ortega v. Warden, FCI-Texarkana, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jose-ortega-v-warden-fci-texarkana-txed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack