Zadeh v. Noem

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:26-cv-00126 Document19_~ Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Page 1 of 2

|
United States District Court |
Southem District of Texas |

ENTERED
May 14, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
KAZEM N, Z., §
“Petitioner,” §
§
v. § Civil Action No, 1:26-cv-00126
§
MICHAEL BARRON, ef ai., §
“Respondents.” §
§

ORDER

Before the Court is Petitioner’s “Emergency Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus”
(Dkt. No. 11) (“Petition”), Respondents’ “Response to Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus and Motion for Summary Judgment” (Dkt. No. 15) (“MSJ”), “Petitioner’s Reply to
Government’s Response and Motion for Summary Judgment” (Dkt. No. 16) (“Reply”), the
Magistrate Judge’s “Report and Recommendation to Grant Petitioner’s Habeas Petition” (Dkt. No.
17) “R&R”), and “Respondents’ Objection to April 22, 2026, Report and Recommendation” (Dkt.
No. 18) (“Objection”).

The R&R recommends that the Court grant the Petition (Dkt. No. 11) and deny the MSJ
(Dkt. No. 15). Dkt. No, 17 at 3. The recommended relief includes the issuance of an order (1)
directing Respondents to release Petitioner subject to supervision and (2) instructing Respondents
to provide a status update verifying such relief. Jd. On May 6, 2026, Respondents filed their
Objection, contending only that “the Magistrate Judge erred for the reasons set forth by
Respondents in their briefing previously filed with the court.” Dkt. No. 18 at 1.

Objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which
objections are being made; the Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general
objections. Battle v. United States Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (Sth Cir, 1987).

Because Respondents fail to object to any specific factual finding or legal conclusion that
would necessitate de novo review, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error.! After such review,
the Court ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 15).

‘ “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b}, Advisory Comm. Note (1983),

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 1:26-cv-00126 Document19_ Filed 05/14/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2

Accordingly, the Petition (Dkt. No. 11) is GRANTED and the MSJ (Dkt. No. 15) is
DENIED. Respondents are ORDERED to release Petitioner subject to supervision. It is further
ORDERED that by no later than May 27, 2026, Respondents shall submit a status report

confirming their compliance with this Order.

Signed on this 14" day of f May 2026.

et o Olvera
ited States District Jud