Camilo Ortega Garcia v. ICE

• Court: District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
• Decided: October 30, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-00632
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

CAMILO ORTEGA GARCIA, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-25-632-SLP ) ICE, ) ) Respondent. )

O R D E R Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (R&R) [Doc. No. 27] issued by United States Magistrate Judge Chris Stephens upon referral of this matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). Petitioner Camilo Ortega Garcia, appearing pro se, filed an Amended Petition [Doc. No. 14] seeking a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Respondent ICE filed a Response in Opposition to Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus [Doc. No. 24], to which Petitioner submitted two letters that the Court construes as a Reply [Doc. Nos. 25 and 26]. The Magistrate Judge recommends denying Petitioner’s request. [Doc No. 27] at 2, 9. The Magistrate Judge further advised Petitioner of his right to object to the R&R and directed any objections be filed on or before October 21, 2025.1 Id. at 9. Petitioner was also advised that any failure to object would waive Petitioner’s right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues addressed in the R&R. Id.

1 When an Objection is filed, the Court must make a de novo determination of any portions of the Report to which a proper objection is made, and may accept, reject or modify the recommended decision in whole or in part. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). On October 20, 2025, Petitioner filed a letter in response to the R&R [Doc. No. 28]. However, the Court does not construe Petitioner’s filing as an “objection” because Petitioner does not specifically challenge any of the Magistrate Judge’s findings or

conclusions. 2 See [Doc. No. 28]; see also United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060 (10th Cir. 1996) (Any “objection[] to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation must be both timely and specific to preserve an issue for de novo review by the district court.”); Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991). Rather, Petitioner specifically accepts the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions as correct. Id. at 1.

Therefore, the Court finds that Petitioner waived further review of all issues addressed in the R&R. See Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010). The Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis in the R&R and adopts the same. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 27] is ADOPTED in its entirety. The Amended Petition [Doc. No. 14] is DENIED. A

separate judgment shall be entered.3

2 Instead, for the first time in the letter, Petitioner requests this Court to “expedite” his deportation. See [Doc. No. 28] at 1. Because Petitioner did not make this request in his prior filings, it is not properly before the Court. Moreover, such a request is outside the scope of relief available under § 2241.

3 Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases requires a district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability (COA) when entering a final order adverse to a petitioner. However, “a federal prisoner . . . does not need a COA to appeal a final judgment in a § 2241 case.” Eldridge v. Berkebile, 791 F.3d 1239, 1241 (10th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the Court need not consider a COA in this case. IT IS SO ORDERED this 30" day of October, 2025.

SCOTT L. PALK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE