Corpus: 543,223 opinions · 3,177 judges · newest 2026-06-23 · expanding Coverage ↗
Opinion

govinfo:USCOURTS-txwd-5_26-cv-02050-1

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas · 2026-06-09

· GavelSight synced 2026-09-06 03:08:48

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
IFRANALI BABUHAI DHUKA, §
A# 077-403-963, §
§
Petitioner, §
§
V. § CIVIL ACTION NO. SA-26-CV-2050-FB
§
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary, U.S. §
Department of Homeland Security; et al., §
§
Respondents. §
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, filed
in the above-captioned cause on May 21, 2026. (ECF No. 15). To date, no objections to the Report and
Recommendation have been received.1 
Because no party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the Court
need not conduct a de novo review. 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."). The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finds its
reasoning to be neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219,
1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989). 
 1 Any party who desires to object to a Magistrate's findings and recommendations must serve and file his, her or its written objections within
fourteen days after being served with a copy of the findings and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 635(b)(1). If service upon a party is made by mailing
a copy to the party’s last known address, “service is complete upon mailing.” FED. R. CIV. P. 5(b)(2)(C). If service is by electronic means, “service is
complete upon transmission.” Id. at (E). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 15) is ACCEPTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) such that the Petition
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (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 such
that:
1. Respondents are DIRECTED to RELEASE Petitioner Ifranali Babuhai Dhuka from
custody, under reasonable conditions of supervision, to a public place no later than June 15, 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.
3. Respondents shall FILE a status report no later than June 16, 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 9th day of June, 2026.
 _________________________________________________
 FRED BIERY
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
 
2

Passage view · GavelSight