Diaz Garcia v. Grant

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
LAZARO DIAZ GARCIA,
Petitioner,
v.
DR. SCARLET GRANT, Warden, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-25-1239-D
ORDER
Petitioner Lazaro Diaz Garcia filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. No. 1]. The matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge
Chris M. Stephens for initial proceedings in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
(C) [Doc. No. 3]. Petitioner filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel on November 3, 2025 [Doc.
No. 5]. Judge Stephens ordered Respondent to file a response to the Petition [Doc. No. 7].
On November 24, 2025, Respondent filed her response objecting to the Petition [Doc. No.
11]. On December 15, 2025, Respondent filed a notice informing the Court that Petitioner
had been deported to Mexico [Doc. No. 14]. On December 15, 2025, Judge Stephens issued
a Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 15] recommending the Court dismiss the Petition
[Doc. No. 1] as moot and deny Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel [Doc. No. 5] as
moot because the Petitioner is no longer in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs
enforcement.
The case file shows no timely objection to the Report and Recommendation nor
request for an extension of time, even though Petitioner was expressly informed of his right
Case 5:25-cv-01239-D Document 17 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 2

to object, the procedure for doing so, and the consequences of failing to object. Therefore,
the Court finds that Petitioner has waived further review of all issues addressed in the
Report and Recommendation. See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir.
1991); see also United States v. 2121 E. 30th St., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996). For
the reasons explained by Judge Stephens in the Report and Recommendation, the Court
finds this action should be dismissed as moot.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No.
15] is ADOPTED in its entirety. This action is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel [Doc.
No. 5] is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 14 th day of January, 2026.
TIMOTHY D. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-01239-D Document 17 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 2