Premium Warez Clark v. Director, TDCJ-CID

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: November 18, 2025
• Docket: 5:23-cv-00055
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

PREMIUM WAREZ CLARK § v. § Civil Action No. 5:23cv55-JRG-JBB DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID § ORDER Before the Court is Petitioner Premium Clark’s application for the writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the legality of his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Boone Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. On October 15, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending the above application for the writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice for want of jurisdiction as to the first ground of relief, and dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies as to all other grounds. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that a certificate of appealability be denied sua sponte, with such denial referring solely to an appeal of the decision in this case and having no effect upon Petitioner’s right to seek relief in state court through any proper means, or to again seek relief in federal court in the event that the state courts do not grant him the relief he seeks. The Magistrate Judge offered no opinion as to the effect, if any, of the statute of limitations upon any future attempts to seek federal habeas corpus relief. Docket No. 15. A copy of the Report and Recommendation was sent to Petitioner at his last known address, return receipt requested, but no objections have 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 Company of Canada, 931 F.3d 412, 420-21 and n.9 (5th Cir. 2019). 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 and, except upon grounds of plain error, 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 of the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th 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 United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 15) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED that the above-captioned application for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of jurisdiction as to the first ground of relief and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust state remedies as to all other grounds. A certificate of appealability is denied sua sponte, with such denial referring solely to an appeal of the decision in this case and having no effect upon Petitioner’s right to seek relief in state court through any proper means, or to again seek relief in federal court in the event that the state courts do not grant him the relief he seeks. The Court offers no opinion at this time as to the effect, if any, of the statute of limitations upon any future attempts to seek federal habeas corpus relief.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 18th day of November, 2025.

RODNEY GILSTRAP \ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE