govinfo:USCOURTS-txed-5_25-cv-00130-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
TEXARKANA DIVISION 
JOHN EDWARD GOEBEL, 
 
 Petitioner, 
 
v. 
 
WARDEN, FCI-TEXARKANA, 
 
 Respondent. 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
 
 
 
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-CV-130-RWS-JBB 
 
 
ORDER 
Petitioner John Edward Goebel, a former inmate of the Federal Correctional Institution at 
Texarkana proceeding pro se, filed the above -styled petition for the writ of habeas corpus under 
28 U.S.C. § 2241 complaining of the application of time credits to his sentence by the Federal 
Bureau of Prisons. Docket No. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge J. Boone 
Baxter in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. 
In his petition , Petitioner states that he was convicted in the Western District of Texas on 
May 22, 2024 and was confined in a facility which he calls “La Salle Corrections LLC” in Sierra 
Blanca, Texas. Docket No. 1 at 9. He was confined there from September 22, 2023 to August 13, 
2024 until he went to the Federal Bureau of Prisons Transfer Center. Id. He was relocated to FCI-
Texarkana on August 22, 2024. Id. 
Petitioner states that he was determined to be eligible for time credits toward early release 
under the First Step Act but did not receive them . Id. at 2. He states that the time credits would 
entitle him to immediate transfer to pre-release custody and a release date of December 11, 2025. 
Id. at 12, 16. The online records of the Federal Bureau of Prisons show that Petitioner is currently 
in the Federal Medical Center in Fort Worth, Texas with a release date of December 1, 2027. See 
https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/. PageID #: 
<pageID>
Page 2 of 3 
 
The magistrate judge issued a r eport and r ecommendation on April 22, 2026, 
recommending that the petition be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust 
administrative remedies. Docket No. 31. Petitioner did not object to this report and 
recommendation but instead filed a motion asking that his case be withdrawn. Docket No. 32. 
Because Respondent has answered the petition, a voluntary dismissal may be done only by court 
order on terms the C ourt considers proper. F
ED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(2). In this case, adoption of the 
report and recommendation and voluntary dismissal would achieve the same result —a dismissal 
without prejudice. 
Because Petitioner did not object to the report and recommendation, he is barred from de 
novo review of the 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, Te x., 858 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir. 
2017). 
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 of the magistrate judge (Docket No. 31) 
is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further 
ORDERED that the above -styled case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for 
failure to exhaust administrative remedies and upon the Petitioner’s request for dismissal. It is 
further PageID #: 
<pageID>
Page 3 of 3 
 
ORDERED that all pending motions are DENIED-AS-MOOT. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
.
 
____________________________________
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 10th day of June, 2026. PageID #: 
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight