Royston v. Warden, FCC Beaumont Medium

E.D. Texas

Royston v. Warden, FCC Beaumont Medium

DecidedJune 25, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-00064

StatusUnknown

This text of Royston v. Warden, FCC Beaumont Medium (Royston v. Warden, FCC Beaumont Medium) 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

Royston v. Warden, FCC Beaumont Medium, (E.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARCUS J. ROYSTON, § § Petitioner, § § versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-64 § WARDEN, FCC BEAUMONT MEDIUM, § § Respondent. § MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Petitioner Marcus J. Royston, an inmate confined at the Federal Correctional Complex in Beaumont, Texas, proceeding pro se, brought this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court referred this matter to the Honorable Christine L. Stetson, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The magistrate judge recommends denying and dismissing the above-styled petition. The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, along with the record, pleadings and all available evidence. Petitioner filed objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. This requires a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration, the court concludes petitioner’s objections are without merit. A prior unsuccessful § 2255 motion or the inability to meet AEDPA’s “second or successive” requirement, does not make § 2255 inadequate or ineffective. See Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 878 (5th Cir. 2000). Petitioner has failed to satisfy the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by showing “unusual circumstances make it impossible or impracticable to seek relief in the sentencing court.” Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 478 (2023). To the extent petitioner claims he is innocent, he has not established that actual innocence provides a gateway for review of claims raised in a § 2241 petition without satisfying Jones. See Blake v. Smith, No. 24-10249, 2024 WL 5244923 (Sth Cir. Dec. 30, 2024). Therefore, the petition should be denied and dismissed. ORDER Accordingly, petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the report of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 25th day of June, 2025.

PNww be Orne. MARCIA A.CRONE- UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARCUS J. ROYSTON, § § Petitioner, § § versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-64 § WARDEN, FCC BEAUMONT MEDIUM, § § Respondent. § MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Petitioner Marcus J. Royston, an inmate confined at the Federal Correctional Complex in Beaumont, Texas, proceeding pro se, brought this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court referred this matter to the Honorable Christine L. Stetson, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The magistrate judge recommends denying and dismissing the above-styled petition. The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, along with the record, pleadings and all available evidence. Petitioner filed objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. This requires a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration, the court concludes petitioner’s objections are without merit. A prior unsuccessful § 2255 motion or the inability to meet AEDPA’s “second or successive” requirement, does not make § 2255 inadequate or ineffective. See Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 878 (5th Cir. 2000). Petitioner has failed to satisfy the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by showing “unusual circumstances make it impossible or impracticable to seek relief in the sentencing court.” Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 478 (2023). To the extent petitioner claims he is innocent, he has not established that actual innocence provides a gateway for review of claims raised in a § 2241 petition without satisfying Jones. See Blake v. Smith, No. 24-10249, 2024 WL 5244923 (Sth Cir. Dec. 30, 2024). Therefore, the petition should be denied and dismissed. ORDER Accordingly, petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the report of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 25th day of June, 2025.

PNww be Orne. MARCIA A.CRONE- UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Royston v. Warden, FCC Beaumont Medium, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/royston-v-warden-fcc-beaumont-medium-txed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack