Mohamud v. Attorney General of the United States et al
ORDER adopting 9 Report and Recommendations; dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Certificate of Appealability: DENIED. Closing Case. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles on 4/24/2017. (zvr) NOTICE: If there are sealed documents in this case, they may be unsealed after 1 year or as directed by Court Order, unless they have been designated to be permanently sealed. See Local Rule 5.4 and Administrative Order 2014-69.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 17-cv-20416-GAYLES/WHITE
NUR MOHAMED MOHAMUD,
JEFF SESSIONS, Attorney General of the
United States, et al.,
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White’s Report of
Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 9], entered on March 21, 2017. Petitioner Nur Mohamed Mohamud,
who appears in this action pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 2241–43 on December 16, 2016, challenging his continued detention by the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ECF No. 1]. The matter
was referred to Judge White, pursuant to Administrative Order 2003-19 of this Court, for a ruling
on all pretrial, nondispositive matters, and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive
matters. [ECF No. 3].
Judge White’s Report recommends that the Court dismiss the petition action because there
no longer exists an Article III case or controversy, as the Petitioner was removed from the United
States and sent to Somalia on March 9, 2017. The Report also recommends that no certificate of
appealability be issued. Objections to the Report were due by April 4, 2017. To date, no objections
have been filed.
A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objec-
tion is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that
the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). If no objections are filed, the district court need only review the report and
recommendation for “clear error.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006)
(per curiam); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note. The Court has undertaken
this review and has found no clear error in the analysis and recommendations stated in the Report.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report [ECF No. 9] is AFFIRMED AND
ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference. The Plaintiff’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. No certificate of appealability shall issue.
This action is CLOSED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 24th day of April, 2017.
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?