REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

T. MICHAEL PUTNAM, Magistrate Judge.

In this action for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the petitioner, Hasaballa Iessa Abdalla Saed, seeks relief in the form of release pending deportation pursuant to an order of removal. In accordance with the usual practices of this Court and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(2), the matter was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for a preliminary review and recommendation.

On or about April 13, 2016, the petitioner filed his § 2241 motion seeking release from detention pending his deportation. At the time he filed the instant petition, the petitioner was an immigration detainee incarcerated at the Etowah County Detention Center in Gadsden, Alabama, which is located within the Northern District of Alabama. In response to the court's Order for a Status Report (doc. 7), the Government filed a motion to dismiss this action as moot on April 11, 2017. (Doc. 8). By order entered the same date, the parties were notified that the matter would be considered for summary disposition, and the petitioner was notified of the provisions and consequences of this procedure under Rule 8 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.

MOOTNESS

At the time petitioner filed the § 2241 petition, he was confined at the Etowah County Detention Center in Gadsden, Alabama, as an immigration detainee. In the motion to dismiss the petition as moot filed by the Government (doc. 8), the respondents demonstrated through the declaration of Bryan S. Pitman (doc. 8-1) that the petitioner was released from ICE custody on an order of supervision on July 1, 2016. Accordingly, it appears clear that the petition seeking release pending deportation is moot and is due to be dismissed.

RECOMMENDATION

Because the issue presented in the instant petition is moot, the magistrate judge RECOM-MENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED as MOOT.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT

Any party may file specific written objections to this report and recommendation. Any objections must be filed with the Clerk of Court within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date the report and recommendation is entered. Objections should specifically identify all findings of fact and recommendations to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection. Failure to object to factual findings will bar later review of those findings, except for plain error. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985), reh'g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986); Dupree v. Warden, 715 F.3d 1295, 1300 (11th Cir. 2013). Objections also should specifically identify all claims contained in the complaint which the report and recommendation fails to address. Objections should not contain new allegations, present additional evidence, or repeat legal arguments.

On receipt of objections, a United States District Judge will made a de novo determination of those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings of fact and recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The district judge also may refer this action back to the magistrate judge with instructions for further proceedings.

The parties may not appeal the magistrate judge's report and recommendation directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. A party may only appeal from a final judgment entered by a district judge.