govinfo:USCOURTS-okwd-5_26-cv-00150-0

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 
 
PEDRO JAIMEZ-MEDINA, ) 
 ) 
 Petitioner, ) 
 ) 
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-00150-JD 
 ) 
SCARLET GRANT, et al., ) 
 ) 
 R e s p o n d e n t s . ) 
 
ORDER 
Before the Court is Petitioner Pedro Jaimez-Medina’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for 
Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”). [Doc. No. 1]. Respondents filed a Response in 
Opposition to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. [Doc. No. 17]. The Court referred 
the matter to United States Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin [Doc. No. 4], who filed a 
Report and Recommendation (“R. & R.) [Doc. No. 22], recommending the Court deny 
the Petition. Petitioner did not object. 
When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation, the district judge 
“shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which 
objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “[A] party may serve and file specific written 
objections to the proposed findings and recommendations” within fourteen days after 
being served with a copy of the magistrate judge’s report. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The 
district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further 
evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. 
§ 636(b)(1). That the district judge performs a “de novo determination” does not mandate 

2 
 
additional or repeat evidentiary hearings. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 674 
(1980). The Tenth Circuit has “adopted a firm waiver rule when a party fails to object to 
the findings and recommendations of the magistrate [judge].” Moore v. United States, 950 
F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991). Under this rule, “the failure to make timely objection to 
the magistrate[] [judge’s] findings or recommendations waives appellate review of both 
factual and legal questions.” Id. 
The firm waiver rule applies to this case: The R. & R. informed Petitioner and his 
counsel of the period in which to object, and he did not do so. R. & R. at 5. No 
exceptions plausibly apply. Alternatively, de novo review would lead the Court to the 
same conclusion. 
The Court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 22] and 
DENIES the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1]. A separate judgment will 
follow. 
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of June 2026. 
 
 
 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight