Novikova M. S. and Pribylov A. A. v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT April 02, 2026 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk BROWNSVILLE DIVISION

NOVIKOVA M. S. and PRIBYLOV A. A., § § Petitioners, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-234 § IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS § ENFORCEMENT, § § Respondents. §

ORDER

Petitioners Novikova M. S. and Pribylov A. A. are Russian nationals detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the El Valle Detention Center in Willacy County, Texas. Petitioners allege violations of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights and request their release pursuant to Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Respondents seek summary judgment, arguing that Petitioners’ claims under Zadvydas are not ripe. (Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. 21) A United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) recommending dismissal of the claim because there is no basis for subject-matter jurisdiction, as Petitioners’ Zadvydas claims are premature.1 (R&R, Doc. 22) No party objected to the Report and Recommendation, and the deadline to do so elapsed on March 26, 2026.2 “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 Report and Recommendation and finds no clear error within it.

1 As a result, the Magistrate Judge did not consider the Motion for Summary Judgment. 2 Four days after the issuance of the Report and Recommendation, Petitioners filed a Motion to Expedite Review of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 24). The filing does not object to any portion of the Report and Recommendation and only submits information regarding Petitioners’ children. The filing does not impact the analysis within the Report and Recommendation. 1 / 2 As a result, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22). It is: ORDERED that Petitioners’ Novikova M. S. and Pribylov A. A.’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 14) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 21) is DENIED AS MOOT. As this Order resolves the issues raised by Petitioners, it is also ORDERED that the Motion to Expedite Review of Petition for Writ of Habeas corpus (Doc. 24) is DENIED AS MOOT. 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 April 2, 2026. oT « Fernando Rodriguez, Jr. United States District Judge

2/2