Edwards et al v. Oklahoma County Detention Center

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
KEITH WESLEY EDWARDS, et al., 	)
)
Petitioners, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-26-00185-JD
)
OKLAHOMA COUNTY 	)
DETENTION CENTER, 	)
)
Respondent. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Suzanne Mitchell. [Doc. No. 4]. For the reasons outlined below, the Court accepts
the Report and Recommendation.
Keith Wesley Edwards, a pretrial detainee at the Oklahoma County Detention
Center (OCDC), brings this habeas corpus action under 25 U.S.C. § 1303. [Doc. No. 1].
He states he is also bringing this action as “next friend” and on behalf of three other
OCDC detainees, Octavious T. Galloway, Steffan Littlewolf Sanchez, and Aljon Smith.
[Id. at 1, 6–7]. The Court referred the matter to Judge Mitchell for initial proceedings
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). [Doc. No. 3].
Judge Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation (“R. & R.”) recommending
that the Court dismiss the Petition because (1) Edwards lacks a basis to proceed under 25
U.S.C. § 1303 because he has not alleged an Indian tribe has detained him, and (2)
Edwards has not pled circumstances justifying his pursuit of this case on behalf of the
other Petitioners as a “next friend.” [Doc. No. 4 at 2–6]. The R. & R. also concluded that
Case 5:26-cv-00185-JD Document 6 Filed 03/12/26 Page 1 of 3

2
the Petitioners other than Edwards have not signed and verified the Petition, thus the
Court lacks jurisdiction to consider it. [Id. at 6–7]. Finally, since the R & R. concluded
that Petitioner is not authorized to proceed as next friend to the other Petitioners, Judge
Mitchell also noted that, because Edwards is not an attorney, he cannot represent the
other Petitioners or file documents on their behalf. [Id. at 7].
Judge Mitchell advised the parties of their right to object to the Report and
Recommendation by filing an objection with the Clerk of Court by March 3, 2026, and
explained that failure to timely object to the Report and Recommendation waives
appellate review of the recommended ruling. [Id. at 8]. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b). Petitioners did not file an objection to the Report and Recommendation or
request an extension of time to do so.
“[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 the 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 v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991) (“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.”).
With no objection being filed, and upon review of the record, the Court accepts,
Case 5:26-cv-00185-JD Document 6 Filed 03/12/26 Page 2 of 3

3
adopts, and affirms the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and dismisses the
petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 25 U.S.C. § 1303. Alternatively, although the
Court is not required to review the record and law de novo because Petitioners have not
timely objected, the Court has done so and determines that the R. & R. should be adopted
in full.
The Court therefore ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 4]. A
separate judgment will follow.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of March 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00185-JD Document 6 Filed 03/12/26 Page 3 of 3