Lugo v. Warden

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
JOSE LOPEZ LUGO,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, FCI-TEXARKANA,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-CV-131-RWS-JBB
ORDER
Pro se Petitioner Jose Lopez Lugo filed the above-styled petition for the writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, complaining of prison disciplinary action taken against him. The
case was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter in accordance with 28
U.S.C. § 636.
Petitioner claims that he was found guilty of the disciplinary offense of “possession of a
dangerous tool,” a cell phone charger, and punished with the loss of 41 days of good conduct time.
Docket No. 1 at 1. He argues that a device charger does not fall within the definition of “hazardous
tool” and that there is insufficient evidence to show that he possessed the charger because it was
found hidden in a table leg in a common area in his cell. Id. at 2.
After 	an 	answer 	from 	Respondent, 	the 	magistrate 	judge 	issued 	a 	Report 	and
Recommendation, recommending that the petition for habeas corpus be dismissed with prejudice.
Docket No. 6. Petitioner received a copy of this Report and Recommendation on December 10,
2025, but he failed to file any objections. Docket No. 7. Accordingly, he is barred from de novo
review 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
Case 5:23-cv-00131-RWS-JBB Document 8 Filed 01/29/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 2 of 2
conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. Duarte v. City of Lewisville, Tex., 858 F.3d
348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017).
The Court has reviewed the pleadings and documents in this cause as well as the Report
and Recommendation of the magistrate judge. After review, the Court concludes 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 and Recommendation 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 (Docket No. 6) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the above-styled petition for the writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE. It is further
ORDERED that all pending motions in this case are hereby DENIED.
.
____________________________________
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 29th day of January, 2026.
Case 5:23-cv-00131-RWS-JBB Document 8 Filed 01/29/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>