Ping v. United States District Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
LO DAI PING, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Case No. CIV-26-646-R
)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 	)
et al., 	)
)
Respondents. 	)
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court for review of a Report and Recommendation
[Doc. No. 9] issued by United States Magistrate Judge Chris M. Stephens. Judge Stephens
recommends that Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss be denied and Respondents be ordered
to file a Response to Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Respondents filed a
timely objection which requires this Court to conduct a de novo review of those portions
of the Report to which a specific objection is made.
Respondents seek dismissal of the Petition pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6),
contending the Petition’s vague statutory challenges and threadbare allegations make it
“impossible” to identify or respond to the claims. Judge Stephens concluded that, liberally
construed, it was clear that Petitioner was challenging his detention without a bond hearing
under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 and dismissal was not warranted.
In their Objection, Respondents reiterate their argument that the Petitioner’s claims
are too general and lack the necessary factual support. “An objection that merely reiterates
arguments 	previously 	presented 	to 	the 	magistrate 	judge, 	or 	that 	expresses 	general
Case 5:26-cv-00646-R Document 12 Filed 04/29/26 Page 1 of 2

disagreement with the recommendation, is insufficient to require de novo review.” Singh
v. Grant, No. CIV-26-279-J, 2026 WL 1035100, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 16, 2026). But
even if the Court engaged in de novo review, the Court agrees with Judge Stephens that
the information contained in the Petition is sufficient to provide fair notice of the claims
and the grounds upon which they rest. Respondents further contend that Judge Stephens
mischaracterized the claims, because Petitioner is not being detained pursuant to § 1225
and his immigration status changed following a criminal conviction. Respondents’ ability
to make a merits-based argument in opposition to Petitioner’s requested habeas relief belies
their contention that they are unable to identify or respond to the claims.
Accordingly, 	upon 	de 	novo 	review, 	the 	Court 	ADOPTS 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation [Doc. No. 9] and DENIES Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No.
8]. Respondents are directed to file a Response to the Petition within seven days of the date
of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29 th day of April, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00646-R Document 12 Filed 04/29/26 Page 2 of 2