Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
A.R.B.R., 	:
:
Petitioner, 	:
:
v. 	: 	Case No. 4:25-cv-256-CDL-CHW
: 	28 U.S.C. § 2241
Warden, STEWART DETENTION 	:
CENTER, 	:
:
Respondent. 	:
:
RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL
Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s application for habeas corpus relief (Doc. 1),
and Respondent’s motions to dismiss (Docs. 4, 7). On November 12, 2025, Respondent filed
the second motion to dismiss in response (Doc. 7) in response to the Court’s order to
supplement the record regarding Petitioner’s status. (Doc. 6). In that motion, Respondent
notified the Court that Petitioner had been removed from the United States, submitting DHS
Form 1-296 to verify that Petitioner was removed from the United States on September 30,
2025. (Doc. 7-1). Due to Petitioner’s removal, Respondent moves to dismiss the habeas
petition as moot.
“Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to the
consideration of ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” Soliman v. United States, 296 F.3d 1237, 1242
(11th Cir. 2002) (citing U.S. CONST . art. III, § 2). “The doctrine of mootness derives directly
from the case or controversy limitation because an action that is moot cannot be characterized
as an active case or controversy.” Id. (quotations and citation omitted). “[P]ut another way, a
Case 4:25-cv-00256-CDL-CHW Document 8 Filed 11/18/25 Page 1 of 3

2
case is moot when it no longer presents a live controversy with respect to which the court can
give meaningful relief.” Id. (quotations and citations omitted). 	“Therefore, ‘[i]f events that
occur subsequent to the filing of a lawsuit or an appeal deprive the court of the ability to give
the plaintiff or appellant meaningful relief, then the case is moot and must be dismissed.’” Id.
(quoting Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d 1330, 1336 (11th Cir. 2001)).
Petitioner sought an order granting him a writ of habeas corpus and release from
custody. Petitioner has since been removed from the country and, according to Respondent,
is no longer in Respondent’s custody. Because the Court can no longer give Petitioner any
meaningful 	relief, 	the 	case 	is 	moot 	and 	“dismissal 	is 	required 	because 	mootness 	is
jurisdictional.” Al Najjar, 273 F.3d at 1336 (citations omitted).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent’s second
motion to dismiss (Doc. 7) be GRANTED, that Respondent’s first motion to dismiss (Doc.
4) be TERMINATED as moot, and Petitioner’s application for habeas corpus relief (Doc. 1)
be DISMISSED as moot.
OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written objections to
this Recommendation, or seek an extension of time to file objections, WITHIN FOURTEEN
(14) DAYS after being served with a copy thereof. Any objection is limited in length to
TWENTY (20) PAGES. See M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.4. The District Judge shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made. All other
portions of the Recommendation may be reviewed for clear error.
Case 4:25-cv-00256-CDL-CHW Document 8 Filed 11/18/25 Page 2 of 3

3
The parties are further notified that, pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party
failing to object to a magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations contained in a report
and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the
right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal
conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences
on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the court may
review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.”
SO RECOMMENDED, this 18th day of November, 2025.
s/ Charles H. Weigle_________
Charles H. Weigle
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-00256-CDL-CHW Document 8 Filed 11/18/25 Page 3 of 3