Graham v. Corizon Medical Services Inc. et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 35

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 1/10/2014. (wcl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
STANLEY M. GRAHAM, #153 494,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORIZON MEDICAL SERVICES,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:13-CV-438-CSC
)
[WO]
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On January 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which the court
considers a motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a),
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Upon consideration of Plaintiff's motion to dismiss, the
court concludes that the motion should be granted. Furthermore, the court concludes that the
dismissal of this case should be without prejudice. See Rule 41(a)(2), Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
Dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), F.R.Civ.P., at the insistence
of Plaintiff is committed to the sound discretion of this court, and absent some plain legal
prejudice to Defendants, denial of the dismissal constitutes an abuse of this court’s
discretion. McCants v. Ford Motor Company, Inc., 781 F.2d 855 (11th Cir. 1986). Simple
litigation costs, inconvenience 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 Company, 385 F.2d 366 (5th Cir. 1967).

The court has carefully reviewed the file in this case and determined that even if
Defendants were given an opportunity to file a response to Plaintiff's motion to dismiss, they
would not be able to demonstrate the existence of clear legal prejudice. Consequently, the
court concludes that this case should be dismissed without prejudice on the motion of
Plaintiff.
A separate Order follows
Done this 10th day of January, 2014.

/s/Charles S. Coody
CHARLES S. COODY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-