March v. Salmonson

Filing 14

ORDER Petitioner Demarcis March, proceeding pro se, filed the above-captioned application for the writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, complaining that his good conduct time was improperly calculated. Docket No. 1 . The case was referr ed to the United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 13 ) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further O RDERED that the above-captioned case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED that any pending motions in the above-captioned case are DENIED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with this Order. Signed by District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III on 2/5/2024. (psm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
DEMARCIS MARCH,
Petitioner
v.
WARDEN SALMONSON
Respondent.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 5:22-cv-84-RWS-JBB

ORDER
Petitioner Demarcis March, proceeding pro se, filed the above-captioned application for the
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, complaining that his good conduct time was
improperly calculated. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636.
The Government responded to the petition (Docket No. 7) and Petitioner filed a reply to the
answer (Docket No. 11). After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report
recommending dismissal of the petition. Docket No. 13. A copy of this Report and
Recommendation was sent to Petitioner at his last known address, 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. See Faciane v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of
Canada, 931 F.3d 412, 420–21 n.9 (5th Cir. 2019). Because no objections have been filed,
Petitioner is barred from de novo review by the District Judge of those 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 has reviewed the pleadings in this case and the Report and Recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge. Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219,
1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (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. 13)
is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the above-captioned case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further
ORDERED that any pending motions in the above-captioned case are DENIED. A final
judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with this Order.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 5th day of February, 2024.

____________________________________
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2