ORDER

JAMES A. TEILBORG, Senior District Judge.

Pending before the Court is the parties' motion (consistent with their consent) to reassign this case to a Magistrate Judge for entry of final judgment. (Doc. 26). Presumably because they consent, the parties cite no authority beyond the Local Rules to support this transfer.

The Court notes that Petitioner filed this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1 at 1). The Court further notes that in its answer, Respondent argued that this case is really a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition, and should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 22 at 1). This Court's limited research has revealed that courts have held that Magistrate Judges may not preside over cases arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, even when the parties consent. See e.g., Johnston v. United States, 258 F.3d 361 (5th Cir. 2001); Brown v. United States, 748 F.3d 1045 (11th Cir. 2016).

Based on this research, the Court questions whether this case can be decided by a Magistrate Judge, even with the consent of the parties. Thus, the Court will deny the motion without prejudice. If the parties choose to re-file the motion, they must address: 1) whether they agree that this case is properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241; 2) the authority of a Magistrate Judge to hear cases under 28 U.S.C. § 2241; and 3) if the Government still contends that this case is properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the authority of a Magistrate Judge to hear a case brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. If the parties fail to re-file the motion to reassign within two weeks, the Magistrate Judge to whom this case is referred shall proceed with the preparation of a Report and Recommendation.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to reassign (Doc. 26) is denied, without prejudice.