Okey Okpala v. Elliot Thomas, Warden

Case: 16-31131 Document: 00514173891 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/27/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 16-31131 FILED Summary Calendar September 27, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk OKEY GARRY OKPALA, Petitioner-Appellant v. ELLIOT THOMAS, Warden, Pine Prairie Correctional Center; UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; ELAINE C. DUKE, ACTING SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; IMMIGRATION JUDGE; BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS, Respondents-Appellees Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 6:16-CV-1069 Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Okey Garry Okpala, immigration detainee # A026-593-316, is a native and citizen of Nigeria. He filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in the district court challenging his continued detention. Okpala now appeals from the district * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Case: 16-31131 Document: 00514173891 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/27/2017 No. 16-31131 court’s denial of his section 2241 petition. We review issues of law de novo and findings of fact for clear error. Tran v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 478, 481 (5th Cir. 2008). First, Okpala asserts that the district court improperly adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation without conducting a de novo review of his objections to the report and recommendation. The district court stated that it had conducted an independent review of the record. “We assume that the district court did its statutorily commanded duty in the absence of evidence to the contrary.” Longmire v. Guste, 921 F.2d 620, 623 (5th Cir. 1991). Okpala has not shown that the district court failed to conduct a de novo review of the record. Next, Okpala challenges the district court’s determination that he is subject to mandatory detention and that he was denied the right to a fundamentally fair custody or bond redetermination hearing. He asserts that the decree that revoked his citizenship is void, that he was a United States citizen and was not subject to removal proceedings, that his conviction was not sufficient to justify removal, and that his conviction was not final. Okpala does not address the district court’s reasons for determining that he is subject to mandatory detention. He does not explain why the hearing was fundamentally unfair. He does not contend that he appealed the revocation order, and he does not challenge the district court’s reasons for determining that he is not a United States citizen and that his conviction is valid. Therefore, Okpala has waived consideration of the issues. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Finally, Okpala contends that the district court erroneously construed his motion to reopen under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) rather than 2 Case: 16-31131 Document: 00514173891 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/27/2017 No. ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals