Garcia v. Olson et al

1
)
Respondents. 	)
ORDER
Petitioner Edgar Perez Garcia filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 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)
and (C). [Doc. No. 4].
On March 2, 2026, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation [Doc.
No. 14], in which she recommends that the Court deny Petitioner’s habeas petition.
Specifically, the magistrate judge concludes that Petitioner fails to allege an independent
statutory violation against Respondents and, further, that the Central District of California
rulings upon which Petitioner solely relies for his habeas petition are not binding on this
Court. See Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-cv-1873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3289861 (C.D.
Cal. Nov. 20, 2025) (Bautista I) and Bautista v. Santacruz, No. 5:25-cv-1873-SSS-BFM,
2025 WL 3288403, at *9 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2025) (Bautista II). Accordingly, the
magistrate judge recommends that both Petitioner’s habeas petition and Petitioner’s
Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal [Doc. No. 9] be denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
EDGAR PEREZ GARCIA, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-26-106-D
)
SAM OLSON, et al., 	)
Case 5:26-cv-00106-D Document 15 Filed 03/11/26 Page 1 of 2

2
In her report, the magistrate judge notified Petitioner of his right to file an objection
to the report on or before March 9, 2026, and that the failure to object waives Petitioner’s
right to appellate review of both factual and legal issues contained in the report. See Moore
v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
Upon review of the file and noting no timely objection to the findings and
recommendations 	of 	the 	magistrate 	judge, 	the 	Court 	ADOPTS 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation [Doc. No. 14] in its entirety.
For the reasons stated therein, Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. No. 1] is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. A separate judgment shall be entered.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Emergency Motion for Stay of
Removal [Doc. No. 9] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11 th day of March, 2026.
TIMOTHY 	. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:26-cv-00106-D Document 15 Filed 03/11/26 Page 2 of 2