Santiago v. Johnston

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
RAFAEL SANTIAGO,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN JOHNSTON,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-CV-114-RWS-JBB
ORDER
Petitioner Rafael Santiago, proceeding pro se, filed the above-captioned petition for the
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging an alleged misapplication of time
credits to his sentence. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge
J. Boone Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Petitioner complains that he did not receive credit for the time he spent in the custody of
the U.S. Marshal awaiting transfer to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) facility. Docket No. 1
at 3, 8. Respondent filed an answer asserting that Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies as required by Fifth Circuit precedent. Docket No. 4 at 4 (citing Rourke v. Thompson, 11
F.3d 47, 49 (5th Cir. 1993)). Petitioner filed a reply, arguing that exhaustion was futile because his
sentence would expire before the exhaustion process could conclude. Docket No. 7 at 3–4.
On December 17, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation,
recommending that the petition for habeas corpus relief be dismissed for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. Docket No. 8 at 3–4. A copy of the December 17, 2025 Report and
Recommendation was sent to Petitioner at his last known address (Docket No. 5), but it was
returned as undeliverable with a notation on the envelope, “unable to forward.” Docket No. 9.
Eastern District of Texas Local Rule CV-11(d) requires a pro se litigant to “provide the [C]ourt
Case 5:25-cv-00114-RWS-JBB Document 10 Filed 01/29/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 2 of 3
with a physical address.” Under Rule CV-11(d), the litigant “is responsible for keeping the clerk
advised in writing of his or her current physical address.” A review of the BOP inmate locater
website indicates that Petitioner was no longer in BOP custody as of December 29, 2025.
Because no objections were 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. Duarte v. City of Lewisville, 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 2017);
Arriaga v. Laxminarayan, 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. 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. 8)
is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. It is further
ORDERED 	that 	the 	above-captioned 	petition 	for 	the 	writ 	of 	habeas 	corpus 	is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of jurisdiction because Petitioner failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies.
Case 5:25-cv-00114-RWS-JBB Document 10 Filed 01/29/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 3 of 3
____________________________________
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 29th day of January, 2026.
Case 5:25-cv-00114-RWS-JBB Document 10 Filed 01/29/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>