Pupo Reina v. Mullin et al

1 / 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
CENIA P.R., §
“Petitioner,” §
§
v. §
§
Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-00637
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, et al.,
in their official capacities,
“Respondents.”
§
§
§
ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner’s “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241”
(Dkt. No. 1) (“Petition”), the Magistrate Judge’s “Report and Recommendation to Deny Petitioner’s
Habeas Petition” (Dkt. No. 4) (“R&R”), and “Petitioner’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation” (Dkt. No. 5) (“Objections”).
The R&R recommends that the Court: (1) deny the Petition (Dkt. No. 1) and (2) direct the Clerk
of Court to close this case. Dkt. No. 4 at 2.
When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the Court reviews the
matter de novo. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989). After such review, the
Court hereby OVERRULES the Objections (Dkt. No. 5) and ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 4).1
Accordingly, the Petition (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to
close this case.
SIGNED this July 20, 2026
1 Petitioner’s Objections rely entirely on the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega, No. 26-50183,
2026 WL 1906557 (5th Cir. July 2, 2026). Dkt. No. 5 at 1-2. Because the panel opinion has been vacated, the Court
does not regard it as having precedential value. See Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 718 F.3d 460, 468 (5th Cir. 2013).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 20, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 1:26-cv-00637 Document 6 Filed 07/20/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 1