Jones, Blechman, Woltz & Kelly v. Tatyana Babakaeva

Filing 920100421

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1956

JONES, BLECHMAN, WOLTZ & KELLY, PC, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TATYANA A. BABAKAEVA, Defendant ­ Appellant, and NIKOLAI I. SINKINE, Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (4:08-cv-00123-RAJ-JEB)

Submitted:

March 30, 2010

Decided:

April 21, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tatyana A. Babakaeva, Appellant Pro Se. Raymond Bernard Bacon, QUADROS & ASSOCIATES, PC, Newport News, Virginia; Lawrence Hoyt Glanzer, ROUSSOS LASSITER GLANZER & MARCUS, PLC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Tatyana A. Babakaeva seeks to appeal the district

court's order, entered after a hearing, denying her motion to strike Plaintiff's Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of

voluntary dismissal.

In its order, the district court stated

that "[t]he dismissal of the case remains effective as of the date of the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal." appeal. Babakaeva did not file an answer or a motion for We dismiss the

summary judgment prior to the filing of the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice. Therefore, the voluntary dismissal became effective

upon filing of the notice with the clerk of the district court. At that point, the action terminated, and the district court was divested of jurisdiction. See In re Matthews, 395 F.3d 477, 480

(4th Cir. 2005); Marex Titanic, Inc. v. The Wrecked & Abandoned Vessel, 2 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the

district court was without authority to conduct the hearing or to enter the order Babakaeva seeks to appeal, and that order is void. 861 See Safeguard Business Sys., Inc. v. Hoeffel, 907 F.2d Cir. 1990). The order as of being the void, date the the voluntary notice of

(8th

dismissal

remains

effective

dismissal was filed in the district court.

2

We accordingly deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately addressed in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. DISMISSED

3