Singh v. Johnson et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
KULDEEP SINGH, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-310-J
)
JOSHUA JOHNSON, et al., )
)
Respondents. )
ORDER
Petitioner Kuldeep Singh, a noncitizen from India, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. No. 1]. The matter was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Amanda L. Maxfield consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Judge
Maxfield issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court: (1) grant the
Petition in part; (2) order Respondents to provide Petitioner with a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a) within seven days or otherwise release him; and (3) order Respondents to certify
compliance by filing a status report within ten days of the Court’s order [Doc. No. 1 1]. The parties
were advised of their right to object to the Report and Recommendation by March 20, 2026. Id.
at 12. Respondents filed a timely Objection [Doc. No. 12]. For the reasons discussed below, the
Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and the Petition is GRANTED to the extent it alleges
Petitioner’s lack of a bond hearing violates federal law.
I. Background
Petitioner is a citizen of India who entered the United States in approximately 2024 without
admission or parole. [Doc. No. 1 ¶ 14, 40; Doc. No. 9 at 12]. In May 2024, Petitioner was detained
according to a warrant issued under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). [Doc. No. 1 ¶ 40;
Doc. No. 1-2]. Consequently, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) began removal
Case 5:26-cv-00310-J Document 13 Filed 03/23/26 Page 1 of 3

2
proceedings against Petitioner, alleging he was an alien present in the United States who had not
been admitted or paroled. [Doc. No. 9-3 at 1]. In August 2023, Petitioner filed a Form I-589
asylum application, seeking lawful residence in the United States. Id. In December 2025, ICE re-
detained Petitioner “during a routine commercial truck inspection in Oklahoma.” [Doc. No. 1
¶ 42]. Respondents contend Petitioner was properly re-detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2).
[Doc. No. 9]. While housed at the Cimarron Correctional Facility in Cushing, Oklahoma,
Petitioner filed his Petition, asserting that his continued detention without a bond hearing violates
(1) the INA, and (2) his Fifth Amendment due process rights.1
II. Standard of Review
Although it was timely filed, Respondents’ Objection does not trigger de novo review. An
objection that merely reiterates arguments previously presented to the magistrate judge, or that
expresses general disagreement with the recommendation, is insufficient to require de novo
review. E.g., Valle v. Jones, No. CIV-25-1161-J, 2025 WL 3488290, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 4,
2025) (collecting cases); see also Cisneros v. Gomez, No. CIV-21-825-PRW, 2023 WL 2543435,
at *1 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 16, 2023). Here, Respondents concede the Objection “expressly reasserts
. . . arguments set forth in the Response.” [Doc. No. 12 at 1]. This does not trigger de novo review.
Sanchez-Gilly v. Noem, No. CIV-26-139-J, 2026 WL 674200 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 10, 2026).
III. Analysis
Having determined that Respondents’ Objection did not trigger de novo review, the Court
reviews Judge Maxfield’s Report and Recommendation only to “confirm that there is no clear error
on the face of the record.” Barnett v. Okla. State Reformatory, No. CIV-25-248-J, 2025 WL
1 Because the Court grants Petitioner relief under § 1226(a), it declines to address his constitutional
claim.
Case 5:26-cv-00310-J Document 13 Filed 03/23/26 Page 2 of 3

3
2205827, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 4, 2025). With that review, the Court ADOPTS the thorough
and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation concluding that Petitioner’s detention without a
bond hearing violates the INA. Even if the Court engaged in de novo review, this Court, and
indeed most courts in this circuit and nationwide, have repeatedly concluded that § 1226(a)
controls in this situation. See Coreas v. Noem, No. CIV-26-151-J, 2026 WL 541151, at *2 (W.D.
Okla. Feb. 26, 2026) (collecting cases); Singh v. Bondi, No. CIV-26-43-J, 2026 WL 483482, at *2
(W.D. Okla. Feb. 20, 2026). Unless the Tenth Circuit or Supreme Court hold differently, the
matter is well settled in this Court and further discussion is unwarranted.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons above, the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 11] is ADOPTED and
Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED in so far as it finds Respondents
violated the INA. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Respondents to provide Petitioner with an
individualized bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) or otherwise release Petitioner within seven
days of this Order’s date. Respondents shall also certify compliance within ten days of this Order’s
date.
A separate judgment will enter.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of March, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00310-J Document 13 Filed 03/23/26 Page 3 of 3