Luis S.R. v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Luis S.R. v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Eric Klang, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Crow Wing County, Minnesota; David Easterwood, in his official capacity as Acting Field Office Director of the Saint Paul Field Office, Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement; Todd Lyons, in his official capacity as Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Markwayne Mullin, in his official capacity as U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security; and Pamela Bondi, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the United States
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:26-cv-01482
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Luis S.R. v. ICE, Judge Blackwell denied the petition for release from immigration detention after adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation without objection.
People held in immigration detention in the District of Minnesota who file habeas corpus petitions challenging the lawfulness of their detention, particularly those whose petitions are assigned to magistrate judges and who do not file objections to adverse recommendations.
What happened
In Luis S.R. v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (No. 26-1482), a person held in immigration detention filed an amended petition asking a federal court to order his release. The petition was brought against Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Sheriff of Crow Wing County, and several federal immigration and law enforcement officials acting in their official capacities.
United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation on March 26, 2026, recommending that the petition be denied. Luis S.R. did not file any objections to that recommendation within the allowed time.
Because no objections were filed, Judge Jerry W. Blackwell reviewed the Report and Recommendation only for clear error, found none, accepted it in full, and denied Luis S.R.'s petition for a court order requiring his release from detention. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.
The detailed version
- Luis S.R. v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement · No. 0:26-cv-01482
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- Apr. 6, 2026
Background
Petitioner Luis S.R. filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a court order challenging the lawfulness of a person's detention and seeking release — in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The respondents named in the petition were: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); Eric Klang in his official capacity as Sheriff of Crow Wing County, Minnesota; David Easterwood in his official capacity as Acting Field Office Director of the Saint Paul Field Office of ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations; Todd Lyons in his official capacity as Acting Director of ICE; Markwayne Mullin in his official capacity as U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security; and Pamela Bondi in her official capacity as Attorney General of the United States.
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on March 26, 2026 (Doc. No. 22), recommending denial of the amended petition. The opinion does not describe the specific legal reasoning contained in the R&R. Luis S.R. did not file any objections to the R&R within the permitted time.
Standard of Review
When no timely objections are filed to a magistrate judge's R&R, the district court reviews it only for clear error, as authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and established in Eighth Circuit precedent (citing Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996)). Judge Blackwell applied this deferential standard.
Ruling
Judge Blackwell found no clear error in the R&R and accepted it in full. The court denied Luis S.R.'s Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 12) and ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.
Limitations of This Summary
Because this order simply accepts the R&R without elaborating on its legal reasoning, the specific grounds for denial — such as any legal analysis of the detention's lawfulness — are not set out in this order and therefore cannot be summarized here. The underlying R&R (Doc. No. 22) would contain that analysis.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.