Dadi Sani v. Figueroa et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
FARHOOD ALLAH DADI SANI, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-26-00970-JD
)
FRED FIGUEROA, et al., 	)
)
Respondents. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Amanda L. Maxfield’s Report
and Recommendation (“R. & R.”) [Doc. No. 32], to which Respondents did not file
objections. Consequently, as discussed below, the Court accepts the R. & R.
Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
challenging his immigration detention. [Doc. No. 1]. The Court referred this action to
Judge Maxfield for preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). [Doc.
No. 7].
The R. & R. recommends granting Petitioner’s petition and releasing him from
immigration detention subject to an appropriate Order of Supervision (“OOS”). [Doc. No.
32]. The R. & R. recommendation is based on the Court’s findings that “Petitioner is
currently detained in violation of Zadvydas [v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)]; and/or that
he was revoked from his OOS in violation of [8 C.F.R.] § 241.13(i)(2), or § 241.13(i)(3),
or both.” [Id. at 32 (emphasis omitted)]. The R. & R. advised Respondents of their right
to object by September 3, 2026, and warned that failure to file timely objections would
Case 5:26-cv-00970-JD Document 35 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 3

2
waive the right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues in the R. & R. [Id. at
32–33 (citing Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991))].
“[A] party’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation must
be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court or
for appellate review.” United States v. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir.
1996). By not objecting to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, a party
waives its right to challenge the legal and factual basis for the magistrate judge’s
decision. See Ayala v. United States, 980 F.2d 1342, 1352 (10th Cir. 1992) (holding that
the plaintiffs “waived their right to appeal the magistrate’s ruling” because they did not
file any objections); Moore, 950 F.2d at 659 (“Our waiver rule provides that the failure to
make timely objection to the magistrate’s findings or recommendations waives appellate
review of both factual and legal questions.”).
Respondents did not file objections to the R. & R. by the deadline challenging any
aspect of the R. & R. and thus waived their right to challenge the recommended
disposition. “The waiver rule as a procedural bar need not be applied when the interests
of justice so dictate.” Moore, 950 F.2d at 659. However, the interests of justice do not
warrant an exception to the waiver rule in this case. See Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d
1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010) (explaining that the court may grant relief from the waiver
rule for failure to timely object to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in
the “interests of justice”).
Accordingly, the Court ACCEPTS the R. & R. [Doc. No. 32] and ORDERS that
Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be granted and
Case 5:26-cv-00970-JD Document 35 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Petitioner immediately released subject to an appropriate OOS. [See Doc. No. 32 at 32].1
In accordance with the R. & R.’s recommendation, Respondents shall “certify
compliance by filing a status report within three business days of the Court’s order.”
[Id.]. A separate judgment shall follow.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of October 2026.
1 The Court does not conduct a de novo review of the R. & R. given Respondents
failed to object.
Case 5:26-cv-00970-JD Document 35 Filed 10/15/26 Page 3 of 3