Bakyt Bekboev v. Rafael Vergara, Warden, Adams County Correctional Center

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI WESTERN DIVISION BAKYT BEKBOEV PETITIONER VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:26-CV-37-DCB-BWR RAFAEL VERGARA, Warden, Adams County Correctional Center RESPONDENT

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) [ECF No. 12] of the United States Magistrate Judge entered herein on March 19, 2026, in this action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In the Report, Judge Rath recommended denial of Petitioner Bakyt Bekboev’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 4]. Petitioner, represented by counsel, has failed to file objections to the Report by his deadline of April 2, 2026.

Where no party has objected to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo review of it. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”). Where there are no objections, the Court applies the “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law” standard of review to the Report and Recommendation.

United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989).

The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 4], filed February 6, 2026, and the related filings. Having considered the Report of Judge Rath, the Court adopts his findings and conclusions in full. In his Report, Judge Rath concluded, after a thorough review of the applicable law, that Bekboev cannot show that his statutory or due process claims have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.

Petitioner’s statutory arguments are currently foreclosed by the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir. 2026), reh’g en banc denied (Apr. 9, 2026).

See also Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 297 (2018) (finding that “neither § 1225(b)(1) nor § 1225(b)(2) says anything whatsoever about bond hearings.”). And Petitioner’s due process arguments do not address the Supreme Court’s ruling in Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 526 (2003), which reiterated the “longstanding view that the Government may constitutionally detain deportable aliens during the limited period necessary for their removal proceedings.”

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation be, and the same hereby is, adopted as the finding of this Court. Accordingly, Bekboev’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 4] is hereby denied.

SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 14th day of April, 2026.

/s/ David Bramlette UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE