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, )

Download PDF
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-

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?