Masoud
v.
Filip

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
United States District Court, W.D. New YorkJan 26, 2009
08-CV-6345-CJS-VEB. (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2009)

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • Paraison v. Holder

    …(Report at 2); see Karamoke v. U.S. Homeland Sec., No. 09 Civ. 4089, 2009 WL 2575886, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.…

  • Zhadan v. Holder

    …Respondents' motion to dismiss the petition is therefore granted, and the petition is dismissed.See Arthur v.…

lock 31 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

Summaries written by judges

Summaries

  • accepting report and recommendation

    Summary of this case from Li v. Sessions

  • accepting report and recommendation

    Summary of this case from Hugh v. Sessions

  • accepting report and recommendation

    Summary of this case from Luo v. Sessions

08-CV-6345-CJS-VEB.

January 26, 2009


DECISION AND ORDER


This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Respondents moved (Docket No. 8) on November 13, 2008, to dismiss the petition on the grounds of mootness. Magistrate Judge Bianchini issued a Report and Recommendation on that motion on January 5, 2009, recommended granting the motion to dismiss, but without prejudice, since the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") may move to reopen removal proceedings against Petitioner, and there is a possibility he could be returned to detention in DHS custody.

The Report and Recommendation was mailed by the Clerk to Petitioner at La Familia Convenient Store, 154 East 188th Street, Bronx, New York 10468, on January 5, 2009. To date, Petitioner has filed no objections to the second Report and Recommendation. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo determination only of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made.

Western District of New York Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1 states in pertinent part as follows: "(d) A party appearing pro se must furnish the Court with a current address at which papers may be served on the litigant. Papers sent to this address will be assumed to have been received by plaintiff. In addition, the Court must have a current address at all times. Thus, a pro se litigant must inform the Court immediately in writing of any change of address. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of the case with prejudice."

Fourteen days have elapsed since the Clerk served the Report and Recommendation by mail to Petitioner. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a).

The Court accepts Magistrate Judge Bianchini's Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 11) and for the reasons set forth in it, Respondents' motion to dismiss (Docket No. 8) is granted and the petition is dismissed, without prejudice, as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.