govinfo:USCOURTS-txwd-5_26-cv-02954-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
SANTIAGO BALDERAS-MORRONES, §
A# 055-961-744, §
§
Petitioner, §
§
V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-26-CV-2954-FB
§
TODD BLANCHE, Acting U.S. Attorney §
General; et al., §
§
Respondents. §
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court are the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (ecf
No. 12) concerning the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) (ECF No. 1) filed by Petitioner
Santiago Balderas-Morrones (“Petitioner”), along with the Federal Respondents (“Respondents”)
written objections (ECF No. 15) thereto and Petitioner’s notification (ECF No. 16) that Petitioner has
no objections to the Report and Recommendation. 
 Where no party has objected to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court
need not conduct a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("A
judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made."). In such cases, the Court need
only review the Report and Recommendation and determine whether it is clearly erroneous or contrary
to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989).
On the other hand, any Report and Recommendation to which objection is made requires de
novo review by the Court. Such a review means that the Court will examine the entire record, and will

make an independent assessment of the law. The Court need not, however, conduct a de novo review 
when the objections are frivolous, conclusive, or general in nature. Battle v. United States Parole
Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
The Court has thoroughly analyzed Respondents’ submission in light of the entire record. As
required by Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), the Court has conducted an independent review of the entire
record in this cause and has conducted a de novo review with respect to those matters raised by the
objections. After due consideration, the Court concludes the objections lack merit. Based on the
parties’ written briefings, their arguments in the evidentiary hearing, and the record evidence, this Court
agrees with Magistrate Judge Kelly G. Stephenson that Petitioner’s prolonged detention following the
entry of his final order of removal violates his due process rights under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678
(2001) and therefore he should be released on this ground, and in all other respects the Petition should
be denied. 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 12) is ACCEPTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that the Petition 
(ECF No. 1) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART: 
IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is GRANTED under
Zadvydas such that:
1. Respondents are DIRECTED to RELEASE Petitioner Santiago Balderas-Morrones 
from custody, under conditions of release substantially similar to the conditions of his previous Order
of Supervision, to a public place no later than June 18, 2026. 
 2. Respondents must NOTIFY Petitioner’s counsel of the exact location and exact time
of release as soon as practicable and no less than two hours before release.
2

3. Respondents shall FILE a status report no later than June 19, 2026, confirming that
Petitioner has been released. 
In all other respects the Petition is DENIED.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that motions pending with the Court, if any, are Dismissed as Moot
and this case is CLOSED.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED this 12th day of June, 2026.
 _________________________________________________
 FRED BIERY
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
 
3

Passage view · GavelSight