Shuntah Roland Yotcha v. Warden, Port Isabel Detention Center, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT July 31, 2026 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk BROWNSVILLE DIVISION

SHUNTAH ROLAND YOTCHA, § § Petitioner, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:26-CV-337 § WARDEN, PORT ISABEL DETENTION § CENTER, et al., § § Respondents. §

ORDER

Petitioner Shuntah Roland Yotcha is currently detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Port Isabel Service Processing Center in Cameron County, Texas. He is subject to a final order of removal, but challenges his prolonged detention as a violation of his constitutional rights. The Government moved for summary judgment. (MSJ, Doc. 17) A United States Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny the Petition. (R&R, Doc. 19) No party objected to the Report and Recommendation and the deadline for doing so expired on July 30, 2026.1 “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. As a result, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19). It is:

1 The Clerk's Office mailed a copy of the Report and Recommendation to Petitioner at the return address that he included in his Complaint. (See Doc. No. 20) The document was returned as undeliverable. (See 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). 1 / 2 ORDERED that Petitioner Shuntah Roland Yotcha’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and ORDERED that the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 17) is DENIED as moot.? This is a final and appealable order. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Signed on July 31, 2026.

□ Fernando Rodriguez, Jr. United States District Judge

2 Petitioner filed his habeas action challenging his detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), on which Respondents relied at the time to detain Petitioner because no final Order of Removal existed. Respondents moved for summary judgment by challenging Petitioner’s arguments that he could not be detained under Section 1225(b)(2)(A) without a bond hearing and for a lengthy period. During the pendency of this lawsuit, the Order of Removal as to Petitioner became final, authorizing Respondents to detain Petitioner under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 and rendering Respondents’ motion for summary judgment moot. 2/2