REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

EILEEN S. WILLETT, Magistrate Judge.

TO THE HONORABLE STEVEN P. LOGAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Petitioner Roberto Romero-Lopez, who is confined in the Eloy Detention Center, filed through counsel a Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 1) and a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 3). The Court denied the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and required the Respondents to answer the Petition and respond to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 5 at 5).

On February 1, 2018, Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15), stating that Petitioner was granted a voluntary departure on January 31, 2018. The Petition (Doc.1) and Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc.3) are therefore moot. Respondents have filed a Notice of Non-Filing a Response to Petition for Habeas Corpus and Joinder in Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 17). All parties request that the Court dismiss this case for the reasons set forth in the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15).

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court grant Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15) and Respondents' Joinder (Doc. 17).

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court dismiss Petitioner's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 1) and Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 3).

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court order the Clerk of Court to terminate the case.

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the District Court without further review. Failure to file timely objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007).