govinfo:USCOURTS-txed-6_24-cv-00104-0

1 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
TYLER DIVISION 
 
ALESIRAM GUEVARA, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
CELESTE BYRD, et al., 
 
 Defendants. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 

 
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 
Plaintiff Alesiram Guevara, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate 
proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case 
was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell pursuant to 28 
U.S.C. § 636. 
On September 24, 2025, Judge Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation 
recommending that the Court dismiss this case with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
§ 1915A(b)(1) for fail ure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted . Docket 
No. 16. After receiving an extension of time to respond to the Report (Docket No. 22), 
Plaintiff objected. Docket No. 26. 
Where a party timely objects to the Report and Recommendation , the Court 
reviews the objected-to findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo. 28 
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire 
record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Alexander v. Verizon 
Wireless Services, LLC, 875 F.3d 243, 249 (5th Cir. 2017). PageID #: 
<pageID>
2 
In his objections, Plaintiff claims that prison officials did not honor his release 
date and that he should be out on parole. Docket No. 26. Plaintiff states in his 
amended complaint that he was sent to the East Texas Treatment Facility for nine 
months of drug treatment. Docket No. 6. After Plaintiff was found at the facility 
with contraband in the form of $1,300 in cash, a hearing was held. Docket No. 10- 1 
at 1. The hearing officer and hearing analysist both recommended that Plaintiff not 
have his parole revoked, but that he be continued on supervision with the existing 
conditions modified or reaffirmed. Docket No. 10-1 at 7. The Board agreed and 
continued Plaintiff’s placement in the SAFPF (“Substance Abuse Felony Punishment 
Facility”). Id. 
Under Texas law, parole approval is not effective or final until a formal parole 
agreement is entered into and signed by the inmate and the Board of Pardons and 
Paroles. Clifford v. Beto, 464 F.2d 1191, 1195 n.3 (5th Cir. 1972); see also Tex. Admin. 
Code. § 145.20(b). The approval may be withdrawn by the Board any time prior to 
the acceptance and execution of the formal parole agreement. Clifford, 464 F.2d at 
1195 n.3. Thus, the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that even if Plaintiff had 
been given a release date at some point, he did not have a liberty interest until he 
executed a formal parole agreement. Plaintiff did not allege, much less show, that 
he had executed such an agreement, and in the absence of a liberty interest, 
the Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff had not stated a constitutional claim. 
See Docket No. 16 at 6. Plaintiff’s objections simply repeat his allegations and as 
such are without merit. PageID #: 
<pageID>
3 
Having conducted a de novo review of the record in this case and the 
Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court has determined that the Report of the 
Magistrate Judge is correct. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report of 
the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 16) as the opinion of the District Court. Plaintiff’s 
claims are DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for 
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 
So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of
___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12th
June, 2026. PageID #: 
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight