Sergeevna v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

1 / 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
NOVIKOVA M. S. and PRIBYLOV A. A.,
Petitioners,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-234
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT,
Respondents.
ORDER
Petitioners Novikova M. S. and Pribylov A. A. are Russian nationals detained by
Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the El Valle Detention Center in Willacy County, Texas.
Petitioners allege violations of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights and request their
release pursuant to Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).
Respondents seek summary judgment, arguing that Petitioners’ claims under Zadvydas
are not ripe. (Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 21) A United States Magistrate Judge issued
a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) recommending dismissal of the claim because there is
no basis for subject-matter jurisdiction, as Petitioners’ Zadvydas claims are premature.1 (R&R,
Doc. 22) No party objected to the Report and Recommendation, and the deadline to do so elapsed
on March 26, 2026.2
“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). The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finds
no clear error within it.
1 As a result, the Magistrate Judge did not consider the Motion for Summary Judgment.
2 Four days after the issuance of the Report and Recommendation, Petitioners filed a Motion to Expedite Review of
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 24). The filing does not object to any portion of the Report and
Recommendation and only submits information regarding Petitioners’ children. The filing does not impact the analysis
within the Report and Recommendation.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 02, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 1:25-cv-00234 Document 25 Filed 04/02/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2 / 2
As a result, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22). It is:
ORDERED that Petitioners’ Novikova M. S. and Pribylov A. A.’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus (Doc. 14) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and
ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 21) is DENIED AS
MOOT.
As this Order resolves the issues raised by Petitioners, it is also ORDERED that the
Motion to Expedite Review of Petition for Writ of Habeas corpus (Doc. 24) is DENIED AS
MOOT.
Each party shall bear its own fees and costs.
This is a final and appealable order.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
Signed on April 2, 2026.
____________________________
Fernando Rodriguez, Jr.
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00234 Document 25 Filed 04/02/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2