Jack v. Sheriff, Bowie County

Jul 21, 2026

5:26-cv-00015

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner John Minors Jack, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled and numbered petition for the writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the legality of his confinement. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636.

On May 28, 2026, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation, recommending the above-captioned case be dismissed without prejudice as moot to the extent it challenges pending proceedings which are now concluded and for failure to exhaust state remedies. Docket No. 9. A copy of the report and recommendation was sent to Petitioner at his last known address. The Fifth Circuit has opined 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 received by the person to whom it was addressed. Faciane v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, 931 F.3d 412, 420–21, n.9 (5th Cir. 2019).

As of this date of this Order, no objections have been filed with respect to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Because no objections have been filed, Petitioner is barred from de novo review by the District Court of the magistrate judge’s 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, 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 reviewed the pleadings in this case and the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, and determines that the report and recommendation is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (where no objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are filed, the standard of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”). The Court further agrees that Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability. Docket No. 9 at 3. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 9) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further

ORDERED that the above-captioned matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

It is further

ORDERED that any other motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby DENIED-AS-MOOT.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 21st day of July, 2026.

ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE