Carlton v. Boyd et al (INMATE2)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that plaintiff's 18 MOTION to Dismiss be GRANTED; that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice; that no costs be taxed herein. Objections to R&R due by 1/19/2010. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr on 1/5/2010. (cc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION _______________________________ A L T O N JAY CARLTON, #263 361 P l a in tif f , v. L O U IS BOYD, WARDEN, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . _______________________________ R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE O n December 23, 2009 Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss which the court considers a motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a), Federal Rules of C iv il Procedure. Upon consideration of Plaintiff's motion to dismiss, the court concludes th a t the motion is due to be granted. Furthermore, the court concludes that this case should b e dismissed without prejudice. See Rule 41(a)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) at the insistence of Plaintiff is c o m m itte d to the sound discretion of this court, and absent some plain legal prejudice to D e f e n d a n ts , denial of the dismissal constitutes an abuse of this court's discretion. McCants 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 Defendants, and the prospect of a second or subsequent lawsuit do not constitute clear legal prejudice. Id. See also Durham v. Florida East Coast Railway * * * * * 2:09-CV-943-TMH (WO)
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 ts were given an opportunity to file a response to Plaintiff's motion to dismiss, they 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. 18) 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 Recommendation on or b e f o re January 19, 2010. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the M a g is tra te Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive o r general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised th a t this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. F a i l u r e 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 5 th day of January 2010.
/s / Wallace Capel, Jr. W A L L A C E CAPEL, JR. U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?