Goodwin v. Washington (INMATE 2)

Filing 21

RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that: (1) plaintiff's 20 MOTION to Dismiss be granted; (2) this case be dismissed without prejudice; (3) no costs be taxed. Objections to R&R due by 1/22/2009. Signed by Honorable Terry F. Moorer on 1/9/09. (sl, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ____________________________ K E R V IN GOODWIN, #168 193 Plaintiff, v. K E L V IN WASHINGTON, COI, D e f e n d a n t. ____________________________ R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE O n January 7, 2009 Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss which the court considers as a request for voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a), Federal Rules of C iv il Procedure. Plaintiff requests dismissal of the complaint in order to present his claims initially to the state courts.1 Upon consideration of Plaintiff's motion to dismiss, the court c o n c lu d e s that the motion is due to be granted. Furthermore, the court concludes that this c a se should be dismissed without prejudice. See Rule 41(a)(2), Federal Rules of Civil P rocedu re. Dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) at the insistence of Plaintiff is c o m m i t te d to the sound discretion of this court, and absent some plain legal prejudice to D e f e n d a n t, denial of the dismissal constitutes an abuse of this court's discretion. McCants * * * * * 2:08-CV-531-TMH (WO) Plaintiff references the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") in support of his request for dismissal of the instant action. 1 v . Ford Motor Company, Inc., 781 F.2d 855 (11 th Cir. 1986). Simple litigation costs, in c o n v e n ien c e to Defendant, and the prospect of a second or subsequent lawsuit do not constitute clear legal prejudice. Id. See also Durham v. Florida East Coast Railway C o m p a n y , 385 F.2d 366 (5 th Cir. 1967). T h e court has carefully reviewed the file in this case and determined that even if D e f en d a n t was given an opportunity to file a response to Plaintiff's motion to dismiss, he w o u ld not be able to demonstrate the existence of clear legal prejudice. Consequently, the c o u rt concludes that this case should be dismissed without prejudice on the motion of P l a in tif f . C O N C L U SIO N A c c o rd in g ly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that: 1 . Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 20) be GRANTED. 2 . This case be DISMISSED without prejudice. 3. No costs be taxed herein. It is further ORDERED that the parties shall file any objections to the said Recommendation on o r before January 22, 2009. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in th e Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous, conclusive or g e n e ra l objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised that th is Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. -2- F a ilu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the M a g is tra te Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the D is tric t Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from a tta c k in g on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the D is tric t Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. W a in w r ig h t, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 3 3 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en b a n c ), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed d o w n prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. Done, this 9 th day of January 2009. /s/Terry F. Moorer TERRY F. MOORER U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?