govinfo:USCOURTS-txsd-2_25-cv-00181-1

1 / 5 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION 
 
 
WILLIAM MITCHELL, 
 
              Petitioner, 
 
VS. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00181  
  
WARDEN LUNA, ET AL., 
 
              Respondent. 
 
 
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION  
Before the Court is Respondent’s motion for summary judgment. D.E. 20. On April 
2, 2026, United States Magistrate Judge Mitchel Neurock issued his Memorandum and 
Recommendation (M&R), recommending that the Court grant the motion, deny Petitioner 
William Mitchell’s habeas corpus petition , and dismiss this action . D.E. 29. The parties 
were provided proper notice of, and opportunity to object to, the Magistrate Judge’s M&R. 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Petitioner timely filed his objections with the 
Court.1 D.E. 33. 
 
1   Parties usually have fourteen days to file objections to an M&R. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 
However, the M&R was served on Petitioner by mail, so Petitioner had an additional three days to object. See Rangel 
v. ASLM II, No. EP-24-CV-00436-DCG, 2025 WL 2731841, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 25, 2025) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 
6(d)). Additionally, under the prison mailbox rule, a pro se  prisoner’s objections to an M&R are “deemed filed and 
served at the moment they are forwarded to prison officials for delivery to the district court.” See Thompson v. 
Rasberry, 993 F.2d 513, 515 (5th Cir. 1993) (applying the prison mailbox rule to filing objections to an M&R). The 
envelope containing Petitioner’s objections was postmarked on April 17, 2026. The objections are thus deemed timely 
filed within seventeen days from the day the M&R was mailed to Petitioner. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C); D.E. 33. 
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 12, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:25-cv-00181     Document 35     Filed 06/12/26 in TXSD     Page 1 of 5
2 / 5 
STANDARD OF REVIEW 
 A district court must review de novo any portion of a magistrate judge’s proposed 
findings and recommendations on dispositive matters to which the parties have filed 
specific, written objections. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Objections must point out with sufficient 
particularity any alleged error in the magistrate judge’s analysis; otherwise, they do not 
constitute proper objections and will not be considered. Id. After considering proper 
objections, the district court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, those 
portions of the proposed findings and recommendations. Fed. R. Civ. P.  72(b). As to any 
portion for which no objection is filed, a district court reviews for clearly erroneous factual 
findings and conclusions of law. United States v. Wilson , 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 
1989) (per curiam). 
DISCUSSION 
 Petitioner raises five objections. First, Petitioner repeats his previous argument that 
the Disciplinary Hearing Officer improperly sanctioned him by using the wrong sanction. 
D.E. 33, p. 1.  He points to BOP Policy 5270.09 ,2 an excerpt of which he attache d to his 
objections. Id. at pp. 4 -8. He claims that Sanction B, under 28 C.F.R. §  541.3, is not 
permitted for an inmate sentenced on or after November 1, 1987.  BOP Policy 5270.09  
states: 
Sanction B does not apply to inmates committed under the Comprehensive 
Crime Control Act for crimes committed on or after November 1, 1987, and 
 
2   U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Fed . Bureau of Prisons, Policy No. 5270.09, Inmate Discipline Program, incorporating 
Change Notice 1 (Nov. 18, 2020), https://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5270_009_cn_1.pdf (“BOP Policy 5270.09”). 
Case 2:25-cv-00181     Document 35     Filed 06/12/26 in TXSD     Page 2 of 5
3 / 5 
prior to passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 
1994 (September 23, 1994). For those inmates, the applicable sanction is B.1. 
BOP Policy 5270.2, p. 14.  
The Magistrate Judge correctly explained that Petitioner misinterprets this 
paragraph. D.E. 29, p. 14. This paragraph sets out a range of dates of criminal conduct—
from November 1, 1987, to September 23, 1994 —for which Sanction B does not apply.  
Because Petitioner ’s criminal conduct occur red in 2016 —well outside of that range —
Sanction B does apply to him, and the forfeiture of 283  days was proper. Accordingly, 
Petitioner’s first objection is OVERRULED. 
 Second, Petitioner objects to the “magistrate litigating for government” and that the 
Magistrate Judge did not permit Respondent to file a reply. D.E. 33, p. 1. It is unclear what 
Petitioner means in this objection. The Magistrate Judge followed the proper procedure for 
dispositive matters under Rule 72. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). And Respondent did not attempt 
to file a reply. The objection is OVERRULED because it fails to point out a specific error 
in the M&R and its apparent complaint is not supported by the record. 
Third, Petitioner objects that the Magistrate Judge should not be allowed to issue a 
memorandum and recommendation without reading and understanding Petitioner’s 
argument. Id. at p. 2. This objection likewise fails to point out a specific error in the 
Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Moreover, it is evident from the Court’s review of the M&R  
that the Magistrate Judge fully comprehended Petitioner’s argument  and rejected it , as 
explained above. Therefore, the objection is OVERRULED. 
Case 2:25-cv-00181     Document 35     Filed 06/12/26 in TXSD     Page 3 of 5
4 / 5 
Fourth, Petitioner again objects that his sanction was improper because he was 
sentenced after November 1, 1987 , as a “new law” prisoner . This objection is redundant 
with Petitioner’s first objection and, for the same reasons, is OVERRULED.  
 Fifth and finally, Petitioner objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to 
deny leave to amend. He argues that he would be able to more clearly set forth his claims 
through amendment. However, Petitioner has failed to point out any alleged error in the 
Magistrate Judge ’s analysis in which he found that Petitioner’s proposed  amendment 
pursuing the same claims  would be futile. And Petitioner’s request for leave to amend —
without explaining other specific amendments sought—fails to state a proper objection . 
See United States ex rel. Willard v. Humana Health Plan of Tex . Inc., 336 F.3d 375, 387 
(5th Cir. 2003).  The objection is therefore OVERRULED. 
CONCLUSION 
Having reviewed the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations set 
forth in the Magistrate Judge’s M&R, as well as Petitioner’s objections and all other 
relevant documents in the record, and having made a de novo review of the portions of the 
Magistrate Judge’s M&R to which objections were specifically directed, the Court 
OVERRULES Petitioner’s objection s and ADOPTS as its own the findings and 
conclusions of the Magistrate Judge (D.E. 29). The Court GRANTS Respondent’s motion 
for summary judgment  (D.E. 20). Further, Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus 
and his construed motion for leave to amend are both DENIED, and all other pending 
Case 2:25-cv-00181     Document 35     Filed 06/12/26 in TXSD     Page 4 of 5
5 / 5 
motions in this action are TERMINATED as moot. This action is therefore DISMISSED 
with prejudice. 
 ORDERED on June 12, 2026. 
 
_______________________________ 
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 
Case 2:25-cv-00181     Document 35     Filed 06/12/26 in TXSD     Page 5 of 5

Passage view · GavelSight