Juan Diego Martinez-Rodriguez v. The United States of America

• Court: District Court, S.D. Texas
• Decided: January 6, 2026
• Docket: 5:25-cv-00107
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT January 06, 2026 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk LAREDO DIVISION

JUAN DIEGO MARTINEZ-RODRIGUEZ § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-cv-107 § CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 5:22-cr-1052-15 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On August 27, 2025, the Court referred a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to United States Magistrate Judge Christopher dos Santos for a Report and Recommendation (see Civ. Dkt. No. 2; Dkt. No. 999). Judge dos Santos issued his report (Civ. Dkt. No. 12; Dkt. No. 1003), recommending that: (1) the Court find Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus as not entitled to relief and deny it; (2) the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Civ. Dkt. No. 11; Dkt. No. 1002) be granted; and (3) the Court sua sponte deny Petitioner a certificate of appealability (see Civ. Dkt. No. 12; Dkt. No. 1003). The fourteen-day objection period has lapsed, and no party objected to these recommendations. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (affording litigants an extra three days to act when service is made via mail). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error. CGI Logistics, LLC v. Fast Logistik, No. 5:23-CV-43, 2023 WL 8313341, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 2023) (Garcia Marmolejo, J.) (citing United States v. Soto, 734 F. App’x 258, 259 (5th Cir. 2018)); see also Cao v. BSI Fin. Servs., Inc., 858 F. App’x 156, 158 (5th Cir. 2021). Finding none, the Court hereby ADOPTS IN WHOLE Judge dos Santos’s Report and Recommendation (Civ. Dkt. No. 12; Dkt. No. 10038). Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence by a Person in Federal Custody (Civ. Dkt. No. 1; Dkt. No. 982) is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. The Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Civ. Dkt. No. 11; Dkt. No. 1002) is GRANTED. Pursuant to Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to notify Petitioner by sending him a copy of this order. Finally, the Court finds that Petitioner plainly cannot demonstrate “that ‘jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the [§ 2255] petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.” Wallace v. Mississipp1, 43 F.4th 482, 492 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000)). Accordingly, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to TERMINATE this civil action. The Court will enter Final Judgment under separate cover. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a). It is so ORDERED. SIGNED January 6, 2026.

Marina Garcia Marmolejo United States District Judge