Tran v. Figueroa

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
TUAN TRAN, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-26-390-J
)
F. FIGUEROA, 	)
)
Respondent. 	)
ORDER
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed a Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention
with the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but did not pay the $5.00 filing fee
or seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 	[Doc. No. 1]. 	The matter was referred for initial
proceedings to United States Magistrate Judge Amanda L. Maxfield consistent with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Judge Maxfield ordered Petitioner to cure the deficiency on or before March
25, 2026, and instructed Petitioner that his “[f]ailure to comply . . . may result in dismissal of this
action.” [Doc. No. 4].
Petitioner’s deadline has passed, and he has not paid the filing fee, moved for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, or otherwise communicated with the Court. 	Accordingly, Judge
Maxfield issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court dismiss the action
without prejudice. [Doc. No. 7]. Judge Maxfield additionally notes that while the Court’s records
reflect that mail addressed to Petitioner was returned undeliverable, see [Doc. Nos. 5–6], it is
Petitioner’s burden to notify the Court of any change of address and “[p]apers sent by the court
will be deemed delivered if sent to the last known address given to the court.” LCvR 5.4. Despite
being cautioned that he must file any objection no later than April 21, 2026, Petitioner did not
Case 5:26-cv-00390-J Document 9 Filed 04/24/26 Page 1 of 2

2
object and has waived his right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues addressed in the
Report and Recommendation. See Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2020).
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 7] and
DISMISSES the Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see
also DeAtley v. Williams, 782 F. App’x 736, 737 (10th Cir. 2019) (affirming dismissal of habeas
petition under Rule 41(b)); Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003) (“Although
the language of Rule 41(b) requires that the defendant file a motion to dismiss, the Rule has long
been interpreted to permit courts to dismiss actions sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute
or comply with the rules of civil procedure or court’s orders.”).
A separate judgment will enter.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 24 th day of April, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00390-J Document 9 Filed 04/24/26 Page 2 of 2