Filed: Sep. 13, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 13, 2019
Summary: ORDER SAM A. LINDSAY , District Judge . The Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge ("Report") (Doc. 9) was entered on August 23, 2019, recommending that the court dismiss without prejudice this action for lack of jurisdiction for the reasons set forth in Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Doc. 8), filed August 21, 2019, as Petitioner is no longer in custody and was deported on August 13, 2019. No objections to the Report were fi
Summary: ORDER SAM A. LINDSAY , District Judge . The Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge ("Report") (Doc. 9) was entered on August 23, 2019, recommending that the court dismiss without prejudice this action for lack of jurisdiction for the reasons set forth in Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Doc. 8), filed August 21, 2019, as Petitioner is no longer in custody and was deported on August 13, 2019. No objections to the Report were fil..
More
ORDER
SAM A. LINDSAY, District Judge.
The Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge ("Report") (Doc. 9) was entered on August 23, 2019, recommending that the court dismiss without prejudice this action for lack of jurisdiction for the reasons set forth in Respondent's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Doc. 8), filed August 21, 2019, as Petitioner is no longer in custody and was deported on August 13, 2019. No objections to the Report were filed.
Having reviewed the pleadings, motion, file, record in this case, and Report, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct; accepts them as those of the court, and dismisses without prejudice this habeas action for lack of jurisdiction.
Considering the record in this case and pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b), Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing §§ 2254 and 2255 proceedings, and 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), the court denies a certificate of appealability.* The court determines that Petitioner has failed to show: (1) that reasonable jurists would find this court's "assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong;" or (2) that reasonable jurists would find "it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right" and "debatable whether [this court] was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In support of this determination, the court accepts and incorporates by reference the Report. In the event that Petitioner files a notice of appeal, he must pay the $505 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
It is so ordered.
