Mizgirev et al v. Rokosky et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Artem Mizgirev, et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
Eric Rokosky, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-26-01969-PHX-SHD
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Petitioners’ Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Magistrate Judge to whom this case was referred issued
a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending the Petition be granted in part and
denied in part. (Doc. 16.) No objection has been filed and the time to do so has expired.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that
the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de
novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d
1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.
Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that
de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not
otherwise.’”); see also Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt.,
589 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions
Case 2:26-cv-01969-SHD Document 18 Filed 06/09/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of the [Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object”). District courts
are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an
objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) (“[T]he court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the
[report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”).
No objection having been filed,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED the R&R (Doc. 16) is adopted as the Order of
this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioners’ § 2241 Petition (Doc. 1) is granted in
part and denied in part. The Petition is granted to the extent Petitioners seek bond
redetermination hearings. The Petition is otherwise denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Respondents must provide Petitioners with
individualized bond hearings within seven (7) days of this Order and adequate notice prior
to the hearings. The bond hearings shall comply with the procedural requirements set out
in Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011) and the government shall bear the burden
of proving that Petitioners are a danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence.
Additionally, the IJ should consider Petitioners’ financial situation and alternative
conditions of release. Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2017). In the
alternative, the government may release Petitioners under appropriate conditions of release.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Respondents must provide a notice of compliance
within three (3) days of releasing Petitioners or providing bond hearings. If applicable,
that notice must include the result of the bond hearing.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED any pending motions are denied as moot and the
Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in Petitioners’ favor and close this case.
Dated this 9th day of June, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-01969-SHD Document 18 Filed 06/09/26 Page 2 of 2