Rivero et al v. US Department of Homeland Security et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ANGELICA MARIA DIAZ )
RIVERO, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-160-SLP
)
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, )
et al., )
)
Respondents. )
O R D E R
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States
Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell entered March 9, 2026. [Doc. No. 5]. In the R&R, the
Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of this action without prejudice because of
Petitioner Angelica Maria Diaz Rivero’s failure to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s
Order [Doc. No. 4] to pay the initial filing fee and clarify whether Petitioner seeks “next
friend” status to file on behalf of detainee Ritzabeth Milagros Penda Alvarado. See R&R
[Doc. No. 5] at 1–3. Petitioner Rivero failed to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s Order
by the required date nor requested an extension of time to do so.
The Magistrate Judge advised Petitioner of her right to object to the R&R and
directed any objections be filed on or before March 30, 2026. Id. at 3. Petitioner was
further advised that any failure to object would waive Petitioner’s right to appellate review
of the factual and legal issues addressed in the R&R. Id.
Case 5:26-cv-00160-SLP Document 7 Filed 04/28/26 Page 1 of 3

2
A copy of the Magistrate Judge’s R&R was mailed to both the address provided by
Petitioner Rivero in the Petition [Doc. No. 1] and to the detention facility where Ritzabeth
Milagros Pineda Alvarado was located. The copy of the R&R mailed to the address
provided by Petitioner Rivero was returned as undeliverable as an insufficient address. See
generally [Doc. No. 6]. The Magistrate Judge’s Order [Doc. No. 4] and prior documents
sent to Petitioner’s provided address have not been returned as undeliverable. Because the
Report and Recommendation was sent to the last known address of Petitioner Rivero and
to Ritzabeth Milagros Pineda Alvarado’s detention facility, the Court deems the Report
and Recommendation as “delivered” under the Court’s local rules. See LCvR 5.4; see also
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) (“Every pleading . . . must be signed . . . by a party personally if the
party is unrepresented. The paper must state the signer’s address . . . .”) (emphasis added).1
Petitioner has neither filed an objection nor sought an extension of time in which to
do so. Therefore, the Court finds that Petitioner has waived further review of all issues
addressed in the R&R. See Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010).
Upon review, the Court fully concurs with the analysis set forth in the R&R.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No.
5] is ADOPTED in its entirety and this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
A separate judgment of dismissal shall be entered contemporaneously with this Order.
1 Despite Petitioner’s representations as to her address in the Petition, the Court notes that the
Petition was mailed from a similar address located in Irving, Texas. See Envelope [Doc. No. 1-
11]. Out of an abundance of caution, the Court directs the Clerk of the Court to mail this Order
and corresponding Judgment to the listed addresses of the Petitioner(s) and to Angelica Maria Diaz
Rivero at 213 Edith St., Irving, TX 75061.
Case 5:26-cv-00160-SLP Document 7 Filed 04/28/26 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of April, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00160-SLP Document 7 Filed 04/28/26 Page 3 of 3