Gonzalez v. Warden Diamondback Correctional Facility

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DARWIN JOSE CARDOZO
GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, DIAMONDBACK
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
) 	Case No. CIV-26-1569-PRW
)
)
)
)
ORDER
Before the Court are Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 1) and
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Dkt. 3). This case is one of many habeas
petitions filed by an alien detainee challenging the legal basis for his detention. On July 7,
2026, Magistrate Judge Suzanna Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 8)
recommending that the Court deny Petitioner’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.
On 	August 	28, 	2026, 	Magistrate 	Judge 	Suzanne 	Mitchell 	issued 	a 	Report 	and
Recommendation (Dkt. 15) recommending that the Court deny Petitioner’s request for
habeas relief. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 15) also recommends that the Court
deny as moot Petitioner’s Motions to Expedite Consideration of Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (Dkts. 11, 13) and Motions for Immediate Release (Dkts. 12, 14).
The July Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 8) advised the parties of their right to
object on or before July 28, 2026. The August Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 15)
Case 5:26-cv-01569-PRW Document 17 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 2

2
advised the parties of their right to object on or before September 18, 2026.1 No party filed
an objection to either Report and Recommendation. In the absence of a timely objection,
the Court reviews the Reports and Recommendations to confirm that there is no plain error
on the face of the record.2 Finding none, the Court agrees with Judge Mitchell’s analyses
and conclusions.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS both Reports and Recommendations
(Dkts. 8, 15); DENIES the Petition (Dkt. 1); DENIES the Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order (Dkt. 3); and DENIES as moot Petitioner’s Motions to Expedite
Consideration of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkts. 11, 13) and Motions for
Immediate Release (Dkts. 12, 14).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of October 2026.
1 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring a district judge to “make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made” but otherwise permitting a district judge to review the report and
recommendations under any standard it deems appropriate).
2 Summers v. State of Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167–68 (10th Cir. 1991) (“In the absence of
timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate’s report under any standard it
deems appropriate.”).
Case 5:26-cv-01569-PRW Document 17 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 2