Altamar v. Lowe, 4:18-cv-00705. (2019)
Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20190325471
Visitors: 11
Filed: Feb. 22, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2019
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION SUSAN E. SCHWAB , Magistrate Judge . This is a habeas corpus action in which the petitioner, Wilfran Altamar, challenges his detention by the United States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. See doc. 1. The respondents filed a suggestion of mootness on January 31, 2019, in which they argue that this case is now moot because Altamar has been released from custody. Doc. 11. On February 1, 2019, we ordered Altamar to respond to
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION SUSAN E. SCHWAB , Magistrate Judge . This is a habeas corpus action in which the petitioner, Wilfran Altamar, challenges his detention by the United States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. See doc. 1. The respondents filed a suggestion of mootness on January 31, 2019, in which they argue that this case is now moot because Altamar has been released from custody. Doc. 11. On February 1, 2019, we ordered Altamar to respond to t..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SUSAN E. SCHWAB, Magistrate Judge.
This is a habeas corpus action in which the petitioner, Wilfran Altamar, challenges his detention by the United States Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. See doc. 1. The respondents filed a suggestion of mootness on January 31, 2019, in which they argue that this case is now moot because Altamar has been released from custody. Doc. 11. On February 1, 2019, we ordered Altamar to respond to the suggestion of mootness on or before February 16, 2019. Doc. 12. To date, Altamar has not filed such a response. We accordingly recommend that this case be dismissed as moot.
The Parties are further placed on notice that pursuant to Local Rule 72.3:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
Source: Leagle
