Chen v. Bondi et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
TIAN GANG CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-25-1453-D
ORDER
Petitioner Tian Gang Chen filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. No. 1]. The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge
Amanda L. Maxfield for initial proceedings in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B),
(C) [Doc. No. 3]. Petitioner filed his emergency motion or request for expedited handling
on December 4, 2025 [Doc. No. 5]. Judge Maxfield ordered Respondents to file a response
to the Petition [Doc. No. 9].
On December 5, 2025, Respondents notified the Court that Petitioner was scheduled
for removal outside of this judicial district [Doc. No. 11], to which Petitioner filed a
response [Doc. No. 12]. Respondents filed a second notice to the Court on December 5,
2025, stating that Petitioner was no longer scheduled for transfer because flights to China
were fully booked [Doc. No. 13]. Respondents asserted that Petitioner would be removed
once new travel arrangements were made. Id. On December 5, 2025, the Court ordered
Respondents to file a reply to Petitioner’s notice response [Doc. No. 14]. Respondents filed
a reply to which Petitioner filed a sur-reply [Doc. No. 18]. On December 9, 2025, the Court
Case 5:25-cv-01453-D Document 23 Filed 01/29/26 Page 1 of 3

2
denied Petitioner’s request for the entry of an order preventing Petitioner’s transfer out of
this district, and an order requiring Respondents to provide copies of the travel document
[Doc. No. 19].
On December 12, 2025, Respondents notified the Court that Petitioner would be
transferred outside the judicial district on December 15, 2025 [Doc. No. 20]. On December
19, 2025, Respondents filed a response objecting to the Petition [Doc. No. 1]. Judge
Maxfield issued a Report and Recommendation on December 30, 2025 [Doc. No. 15]
recommending the Court dismiss the Petition [Doc. No. 1] as moot and deny Petitioner’s
Emergency Motion or Request for Expedited Handling Under 28 U.S.C. § 1657 [Doc. No.
5] as moot because the Petitioner is no longer in the custody of U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement.
The case file shows no timely objection to the Report and Recommendation nor
request for an extension of time, even though Petitioner was expressly informed of his right
to object, the procedure for doing so, and the consequences of failing to object. Therefore,
the Court finds that Petitioner has waived further review of all issues addressed in the
Report and Recommendation. See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir.
1991); see also United States v. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). For
the reasons explained by Judge Maxfield in the Report and Recommendation, the Court
finds this action should be dismissed as moot.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No.
22] is ADOPTED in its entirety. This action is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
Case 5:25-cv-01453-D Document 23 Filed 01/29/26 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Emergency Motion or Request for
Expedited Handling Under 28 U.S.C. § 1657 [Doc. No. 5] is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29 th day of January, 2026.
. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-01453-D Document 23 Filed 01/29/26 Page 3 of 3