Singh v. Sessions et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 11/13/2018. (KEK)

FILED
2018 Nov-13 PM 12:41
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
SUKHDEV SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III,
et al.,
Respondents.

}
}
}
}
} Case No.: 4:17-cv-1950-MHH-JHE
}
}
}
}
}
}

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On November 20, 2017, Mr. Singh filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus,
seeking release from federal custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1, p. 1).
Mr. Singh’s petition pertains to his detention by the U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement since November 24, 2014. (Doc. 1, ¶ 6). Mr. Singh is a citizen of
India. (Doc. 1, ¶ 6).
On January 2, 2018, the magistrate judge assigned to this case ordered Mr.
Singh to explain why the Court should not dismiss his petition in light of evidence
which the respondents submitted, evidence which indicates that Mr. Singh has
refused to sign removal papers and to participate in the other steps necessary for
his removal to India. (Doc. 7-1, p. 3; Doc. 9, p. 1).

Mr. Singh responded on January 19, 2018, and objected to his continued
detention. (Doc. 10, p. 5). Alternatively, Mr. Singh requested “a determination
that any immigration law purporting to authorize his continued detention without a
fully bond hearing redetermination violates due process.” (Doc. 10, p. 5).
On July 23, 2018, the magistrate judge filed his report and recommendation.
(Doc. 11). The magistrate judge recommended that the Court deny Mr. Singh’s
petition because the respondents demonstrated that Mr. Singh’s continued
detention without a bond hearing is the consequence of Mr. Singh’s repeated
refusal cooperate in the removal process. (Doc. 11). The magistrate judge advised
Mr. Singh of his right to file written objections to the report within 14 days. (Doc.
11, p. 6). To date, Mr. Singh has not objected to the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation.
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A
district court reviews legal conclusions in a report de novo and reviews for plain
error factual findings to which no objection is made. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d
776, 779 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749
(11th Cir. 1988); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
Based on its review of the record in this case, including Mr. Pitman’s
declaration (Doc. 7-1), the Court finds no misstatements of law in the report and no

2

plain error in the magistrate judge’s factual findings. Therefore, the Court adopts
the magistrate judge’s report and accepts his recommendation.
The Court will issue a separate final order consistent with this memorandum
opinion.
DONE this 13th day of November, 2018.

_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3