IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 
IN RE: PETER GAKUBA, 
Petitioner. 
) 
) 
) 
Case No. 1:25-cv-0042 
) 
 
ORDER1 
BEFORE THE COURT is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) by Magistrate 
Judge Emile A. Henderson III, filed on March 10, 2026, recommending dismissal of the 
Petitioner Peter Gakuba’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) and 
Motion for 2254 Habeas Corpus Writ (ECF No. 8) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as 
second or successive petitions. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff filed a timely Objection on March 19, 
2026. (ECF No. 22.). The Court having conducted a de novo review of this matter making an 
independent determination finding no error in the R&R,2 it is hereby 
ORDERED that Petitioner Peter Gakuba’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report 
and Recommendation, filed on March 19, 2026, ECF No. 22, is OVERRULED; it is further  
ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 19, is 
APPROVED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court as if fully set forth herein; it is further 
ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed on 
December 11, 2025, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; it is further 
ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Motion for 2254 Habeas Corpus Writ, filed on 
December 11, 2025, ECF No. 8, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; it is further 
ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED; it is further 
 
1 Due to the retirement of the judge previously assigned to this case, the undersigned, exercising his authority 
as Chief Judge of the District Court, reassigned this case to himself on February 17, 2026. 
2 See Hill v. Barnacle, 655 Fed. Appx. 142, 148 (3d Cir. 2016) (opining that the district court is not required to 
make separate findings or conclusions when reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation de 
novo under 28 U.SC. § 636(b)) (citing Elmendorf Grafica, Inc. v. D.S. America, Inc., 48 F.3d 46, 49-50 (1st Cir. 
1995) (opining that “[28 U.S.C. § 636(b)] authorizes the district court to adopt in whole as well as in part the 
proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. Where, as here, the magistrate judge decided 
on an undisputed factual record, the district court was certainly not required to rehash the magistrate judge’s 
reasoning. The role of the magistrate judge is ‘to relieve courts of unnecessary work.’”) (citations omitted).  
Case: 1:25-cv-00042-RAM-EAH     Document #: 23     Filed: 04/02/26     Page 1 of 2
In re: Peter Gakuba 
Case No. 1:25-cv-0042 
Order 
Page 2 of 2 
 
2 
ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be served on Peter Gakuba at his last known 
address provided to the Court by certified mail return receipt and that a copy of the return 
receipt be filed on the docket; and it is further 
ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. 
 
Dated: April 2, 2026  
 
/s/ Robert A. Molloy  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
ROBERT A. MOLLOY 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Judge 
Case: 1:25-cv-00042-RAM-EAH     Document #: 23     Filed: 04/02/26     Page 2 of 2