govinfo:USCOURTS-okwd-5_26-cv-00317-0

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 
 
MARLON MARA VILLA-BONILLA, ) 
 ) 
 Petitioner, ) 
 ) 
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-00317-JD 
 ) 
JOSHUA JOHNSON, et al., ) 
 ) 
 R e s p o n d e n t s . ) 
 
ORDER 
Before the Court is Petitioner Marlon Maravilla-Bonilla’s (“Petitioner”) Petition 
for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) [Doc. No. 1] filed through counsel. 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. 7] recommending that the 
Court dismiss the Petition without prejudice for Petitioner’s counsel’s failure to comply 
with the Court’s local rules and orders. Petitioner did not object. 
When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation on a dispositive 
motion, 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 

2 
 
determination” does not mandate 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 3. No 
exceptions plausibly apply. De novo review would lead the Court to the same conclusion 
as Judge Erwin clearly notified Petitioner’s counsel of the need to file for admission pro 
hac vice, associate with local counsel or seek relief, and enter an appearance, and 
Petitioner’s counsel did not comply with any of these rules or the Court’s order of March 
27, 2026. See [Doc. No. 6] (text only order informing counsel of the need to comply with 
the Court’s Local Civil Rules 83.2(g), 83.3, and 83.4 by April 1, 2026). 
The Court ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 7]. The Court 
DISMISSES the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1] without prejudice. A 
separate judgment will follow. 
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of June 2026. 
 
 
 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight