UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA MIDDLE DIVISION KULVINDER SINGH GHOTRA, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No.: 4:18-cv-1494-MHH-JEO ) SCOTT HASSELL, ) ) Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION On July 3, 2019, the magistrate judge entered a report recommending this action be dismissed without prejudice because Mr. Ghotra’s request for relief is premature. (Doc. 8). No party has objected to the recommendation. A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1)(C). A district court reviews legal conclusions in a report de novo and reviews for plain error factual findings to which no objection is made. Garvey v. Vaughn,

, 779 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also LoConte v. Dugger,

(11th Cir. 1988); Macort v. Prem, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2006). The Court adopts accepts the magistrate judge’s recommendation and finds that Mr. Ghotra’s habeas petition in premature. Mr. Ghotra’s lengthy efforts to challenge his removal have tolled the presumptive six-month period for removal. Akinwale y. Ashcroft,

, 1052 n.4 (11th Cir. 2002).! The Court will enter a separate dismissal order. DONE this 30th day of August, 2019.

DELINE HUGHES HAIKALA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

' The magistrate judge, relying on district court opinions, stated that Mr. Ghotra’s efforts to obtain relief from his removal order reset, rather than tolled, the presumptive six-month period for removal. (Doc. 8, pp. 8-9). The undersigned will wait for the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to clarify the extent to which the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ forbearance policy affects the binding precedent in Akinwale. Because under Akinwale, the presumptive six-month period for removal had not run when Mr. Ghotra filed his petition in this action, the result is the same -- Mr. Ghotra’s petition was premature. (See Doc. 8, pp. 2-4 for the details of Mr. Ghotra’s pre-petition efforts to avoid removal).