Nardaf Jardat v. Paul Perry, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division NARDAF JARDAT, Petitioner, v. Case No. 2:25-cv-765 PAUL PERRY, et al., Respondents.

ORDER Petitioner Nardaf Jardat seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking release from immigration detention. ECF No. 1. Jardaf is a native and citizen of Israel and the Palestinian Territories who was taken into civil immigration custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on September 9, 2024. ECF No. 1 at 2; ECF No. 10-1 ¶ 8. On April 3, 2025, an immigration judge denied Jardat’s application for asylum and withholding of removal and ordered him removed to Israel or the Palestinian Territories. ECF No. 10-1 ¶ 12. Jardat did not appeal this decision, and it became final on May 3, 2025. Id. On November 23, 2025, Jardat was removed from the United States to Israel with passage to the Palestinian Territories. Id. ¶ 13. Jardat’s petition was filed in this Court on November 24, 2025.

ECF No. 1.

Before the Court is an unopposed report and recommendation, in which the Honorable Robert J. Krask, United States Magistrate Judge concluded that the petition (ECF No. 1) be denied and dismissed without prejudice and the respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) be granted. ECF No. 14. Judge Krask advised the parties of their rights to object to his findings and recommendations and explained that failure to timely object would result in a waiver of appeal from a judgment of this Court based on such findings and recommendations. Jd. at 4—5 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Carr v. Hutto, 737 F.2d 433 (4th Cir. 1984); United States v. Schronce, 727 F. 2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984)).

The time to file an objection has expired, and neither party objected to the report and recommendation.

In the absence of a specific written objection, this Court may adopt a magistrate judge’s recommendations without conducting a de novo review, unless the recommendations are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted); Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 316 (4th Cir. 2005).

The Court has reviewed Judge Krask’s findings and recommendations and found no clear error. Accordingly, the report and recommendation (ECF No. 14) is ADOPTED.

The respondents’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED.

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. GY /s/ Norfolk, Virginia Jamar K. Walker March 30, 2026 United States District Judge