Muhammad Ayaz v. Todd Blanche, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT July 30, 2026 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk BROWNSVILLE DIVISION

MUHAMMAD AYAZ, § § Petitioner, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:26-CV-528 § TODD BLANCHE, et al., § § Respondents. §

ORDER

Petitioner Muhammad Ayaz is a Pakastani national. At the time Petitioner initiated this action, he was detained by United States immigration authorities at the Port Isabel Service Processing Center in Cameron County, Texas.1 Proceeding pro se, Petitioner sought his release from detention on multiple grounds through his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) and accompanying Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 2). On June 5, 2026, a United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R, Doc. 12), recommending that the Court deny the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. During the objection period, Petitioner filed three additional documents, including an Amended Petition (Doc. 14), a request for appointment of counsel (Mot., Doc. 15), and a motion for reconsideration (Mot., Doc. 17). On July 10, the Magistrate Judge issued an Amended Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18), which included consideration of Petitioner’s additional filings. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny the Petition and the other relief that Petitioner seeks.

1 The Clerk of Court mailed the Amended Report and Recommendation to Petitioner at the address that he provided and maintained with the Court, but the document was returned as undeliverable. (See Mail Return, Doc. 21) Mailing of documents to the address that a litigant provides satisfies the notice requirement for a Report and Recommendation. See Lewis v. Hardy, 248 F. App'x 589, 593 n.1 (5th Cir. 2007) (unpubl.) (noting that when the clerk's office mails a report and recommendation to the plaintiff's last known address and it is returned as undeliverable, the plaintiff “is solely responsible for not receiving” the mailing). On July 24, the period to file objections to the Amended Report and Recommendation elapsed. No party objected to the Amended Report and Recommendation. “When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIv. P. 72(b), Advisory Comm. Note (1983). The Court has reviewed the Amended Report and Recommendation and finds no clear error within it. As a result, the Court ADOPTS the Amended Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18). It is: ORDERED that Petitioner Muhammad Ayaz’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 14) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; ORDERED that Petitioner Muhammad Ayaz’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 2) is DENIED; ORDERED that Petitioner Muhammad Ayaz’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 15) is DENIED; and ORDERED that Petitioner Muhammad Ayaz’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 17) is DENIED. Each party shall bear its own fees and costs. This is a final and appealable order. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Signed on July 30, 2026. Te .

United States District Judge