Makaya 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
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Lusdja Jurrile Davis Makaya,
Petitioner,
v.
Eric Rokosky, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-26-01938-PHX-RM
ORDER
On May 13, 2026, Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles issued a Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 8), recommending that this Court grant Petitioner Lusdja Jurrile
Davis Makaya’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and order
that Petitioner be given a bond hearing. (Doc. 8.) No objections to the Report and
Recommendation were filed, and the deadline for filing objections has expired. (See Doc.
9.)
A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a
magistrate judge’s “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule 72(b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen 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” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory
committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734,
739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court
Case 2:26-cv-01938-RM Document 10 Filed 05/19/26 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
judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan, CV 10-225-TUC-
RCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for clear error
unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation).
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Bibles’s Report and Recommendation,
the parties’ briefs, and the record. The Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Bibles’s
Report and Recommendation. The Court will adopt the reasoning and recommendation of
the Report and Recommendation, and will order that Petitioner be provided a bond hearing
within seven days. At the bond hearing, Respondents bear the burden of proving that
Petitioner is a danger or flight risk by clear and convincing evidence. Singh v. Holder, 638
F.3d 1196, 1203–05 (9th Cir. 2011).
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 8) is accepted and adopted.
2. Petitioner shall receive a bond hearing within seven (7) days of the date this
Order is filed. The bond hearing shall comport with the procedural
requirements of Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011). There must
be a contemporaneous record of the hearing, and the Government bears the
burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is a flight
risk or danger to the community. In the alternative, the Government shall
immediately release Petitioner under appropriate conditions of release.
3. Respondents shall file a notice of compliance within two (2) days of
Petitioner’s bond hearing or release.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Petitioner and
close this case.
Dated this 19th day of May, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-01938-RM Document 10 Filed 05/19/26 Page 2 of 2