PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

JOE J. VOLPE, Magistrate Judge.

INSTRUCTIONS

The following recommended disposition has been sent to Chief United States District Judge Brian S. Miller. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen days from the date of the findings and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in a waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.

If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a new hearing for this purpose before either the District Judge or Magistrate Judge, you must, at the time you file your written objections, include the following:

1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.

2. Why the evidence to be proffered at the new hearing (if such a hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge.

3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at the new hearing in the form of an offer of proof, and a copy or the original of any documentary or other non-testimonial evidence desired to be introduced at the new hearing.

From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing. Mail your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to:

DISPOSITION

Jamar Williams seeks 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas relief contending he is in pretrial custody and being held unconstitutionally with a no bond order. (Doc. No. 2.) He wants his criminal "case dismissed with an immediate release from custody with an absolute bar to prosecution." (Id. at 3.) The Respondent denies this allegation. (Doc. No. 7.)

In reviewing the case, the Court learned from the Arkansas Department of Correction website that Mr. Williams has been sentenced. So the Court, believing the Petition now moot, invited the parties to state whether they believed the case should proceed or not. The Court warned that if no response was filed, the case would be dismissed as moot. (Doc. No. 10.) Neither party has responded to the Court's Order. Therefore, Mr. Williams's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should be DISMISSED as moot.

CONCLUSION

IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that:

1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 2) be DISMISSED and the requested relief be DENIED.