ORDER OF DISMISSAL

JAMES L. ROBART, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the court are (1) the report and recommendation of the Honorable Mary Alice Theiler, United States Magistrate Judge, on Respondent ICE Field Office Director's (the "Government") motion to dismiss and return (R&R (Dkt. # 9); MTD (Dkt. # 5)), and (2) pro se Petitioner Bhola Page's motion for appointment of counsel (MFA (Dkt. # 10)). Having carefully reviewed the foregoing, the parties' submissions, and the governing law, the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation, DENIES Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice, and DISMISSES Petitioner's action without prejudice.

II. BACKGROUND

Petitioner, a native and citizen of India who is currently detained at the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington, bring this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 immigration habeas action to obtain release from immigration detention. (See Pet. (Dkt. # 1).) The Government moved to dismiss on September 19, 2019. (See generally MTD.) On September 27, 2019, Petitioner filed a motion to withdraw his habeas petition, acknowledging the recent developments in the Government's attempts to obtain a travel document and stating that he will refile his case at a later date. (MTW (Dkt. # 8) at 1.) The Government did not object to Petitioner's motion to withdraw. (See generally Dkt.) Accordingly, on October 30, 2019, Magistrate Judge Theiler issued a report and recommendation recommending that the court grant Petitioner's motion to withdraw, deny the Government's motion to dismiss as moot, and dismiss Petitioner's habeas petition without prejudice. (See R&R at 2; Prop. Order (Dkt. # 9-1) at 1-2.)

On November 8, 2019, Petitioner filed a motion for appointment of counsel. (See MFA.) Petitioner states that he does not have the funds to hire private counsel and that his attempts to retain pro bono counsel have been unsuccessful. (See id. at 1.) Accordingly, Petitioner asks the court to appoint counsel for him. (See id.) Additionally, in what appears to be a response to Magistrate Judge Theiler's report and recommendation, Petitioner states that he "does not understand[] why he would not be precluded/allowed to bring [sic] another 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenge later. If this is the case, then the Petitioner does not want to withdraw [his] 28 U.S.C. § 2241 motion." (Id. at 2.)

III. ANALYSIS

A. Report and Recommendation

A district court has jurisdiction to review a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation on dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). "The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Id. "A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court reviews de novo those portions of the report and recommendation to which specific written objection is made. United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). "The statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." Id. Because Petitioner is proceeding pro se, the court must interpret his filings liberally. See Bernhardt v. Los Angeles Cnty., 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003).

Because the portion of Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel stating that "Petitioner does not want to withdraw [his] 28 U.S.C. § 2241 motion" if Magistrate Judge Theiler's report and recommendation would preclude him from re-filing his petition relates to Magistrate Judge Theiler's findings (see MFA at 2), the court construes that portion of the motion as an objection to Magistrate Judge Theiler's report and recommendation. The objection misinterprets Magistrate Judge Theiler's report and recommendation. Magistrate Judge Theiler noted that "even if the Court considered the merits of the Government's the motion to dismiss and dismissed the action on that basis, petitioner would not be precluded from bringing another § 2241 action challenging his continued detention at a later date, as he apparently intends to do." Thus, Magistrate Judge Theiler found that Petitioner would not be precluded from filing another petition, meaning Petitioner's concerns are misplaced.

The court has thoroughly examined the record before it and finds Magistrate Judge Theiler's reasoning persuasive in light of that record. Accordingly, the court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Theiler's report and recommendation, GRANTS Petitioner's motion to withdraw, DENIES as moot the Government's motion to dismiss, and DISMISSES this action without prejudice.

B. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, a district court may appoint counsel in the "interests of justice" in a case brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). "In deciding whether to appoint counsel in a habeas proceeding, the district court must evaluate the likelihood of success on the merits as well as the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved." Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). In light of the fact that the court resolved Petitioner's only concern with Magistrate Judge Theiler's report and recommendation and is granting Petitioner's motion to withdraw and dismissing his petition without prejudice, the court will not appoint counsel at this time. Thus, Petitioner's motion to appoint counsel is DENIED without prejudice.

IV. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the Court finds and ORDERS: