Opinion
3:00-CV-2347-X.
July 20, 2001
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the District Court, this cause has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are as follows:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Type of Case: This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Parties: Petitioner is presently residing in Fairview, Oklahoma. Respondent is the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The court has issued process in this case.
Findings and Conclusions: On June 7, 2001, Immigration Judge Edwin R. Hughes granted Petitioner's requests for a waiver under section 212 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, and for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident of the United States. See Respondent's Supplemental Response filed on July 6, 2001, along with certified copy of the Order of the Immigration Judge filed June 7, 2001. The INS waived appeal and Petitioner was released from custody the same day the adjustment of status was granted. Id.
Because Petitioner has been released from custody, his request for habeas relief is now moot.
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons stated above, it is recommended that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as moot.
A copy of this recommendation will be mailed to Petitioner and counsel for Respondent.
NOTICE
In the event that you wish to object to this recommendation, you are hereby notified that you must file your written objections within ten days after being served with a copy of this recommendation. Pursuant to Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), a party's failure to file written objections to these proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law within such ten-day period may bar a de novo determination by the district judge of any finding of fact or conclusion of law and shall bar such party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected to proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law accepted by the district court.