Cooper v. Warden FCI Texarkana

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
BRETT COOPER,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, FCI-TEXARKANA,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-CV-00003-RWS
ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner Brett Cooper’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the execution of his sentence. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to
United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636.
On December 2, 2025, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Docket
No. 6), recommending Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 4) be granted and that the
above-styled petition for the writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as moot. The magistrate judge
further recommended that the dismissal of the petition should not prevent Petitioner from seeking
such relief as he may be entitled from the sentencing court. A copy of the Report and
Recommendation was sent to Petitioner at his last known address,1 but no objections have been
filed.
Because no objections have been received, Petitioner is barred from de novo review of the
magistrate judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Moreover, except upon
1 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. Faciane v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 931
F.3d 412, 420–21 and n.9 (5th Cir. 2019).
Case 5:25-cv-00003-RWS-JBB Document 7 Filed 01/07/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

Page 2 of 2
grounds of plain error, an aggrieved party is barred 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, Tex., 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. After review, the Court finds 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. 6)
is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court and that Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Docket
No. 4) is GRANTED. Is it further
ORDERED the above-captioned petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED-AS-
MOOT. The dismissal of this petition should not prevent Petitioner from seeking such relief as he
may be entitled from the sentencing court. It is further
ORDERED that all motions which may be pending in this action are hereby DENIED-
AS-MOOT.
.
____________________________________
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 7th day of January, 2026.
Case 5:25-cv-00003-RWS-JBB Document 7 Filed 01/07/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>