Ryan Shilling v. Warden, FCI-Texarkana

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: February 24, 2026
• Docket: 5:24-cv-00039
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

RYAN SHILLING §

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-CV-39-JRG-JBB

WARDEN, FCI-TEXARKANA §

ORDER Before the Court is Petitioner Ryan Shilling’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the computation of his sentence. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Boone Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. On January 12, 2026, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 7), recommending the above-styled petition for the writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as moot. A copy of this Report was sent to Petitioner at his last known address but was returned as undeliverable.1 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. 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 the Report of the Magistrate

1 Local Rule CV-11(d) of the Local Rules of Court for the Eastern District of Texas requires that pro se litigants must provide the Court with a physical address and is responsible for keeping the Clerk of Court advised in writing of his current physical address. 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. 7) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further ORDERED the above-captioned petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as moot. It is further ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby DENIED.

So Ordered this Feb 23, 2026

RODNEY GILS | RAP \ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE