Stanfield v. Darbouze et al (INMATE 2)(CONSENT)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 15 MOTION to Dismiss and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 9/16/13. (djy, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
BILLY WAYNE STANFIELD,
DR. DARBOUZE, et al.,
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-452-CSC
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
On August 22, 2013 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.1 Furthermore, the court concludes that
this case should be dismissed without prejudice. See Rule 41(a)(2), Federal Rules of Civil
Dismissal without prejudice pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 41(a)(2), 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
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented to entry of final judgment by the
United States Magistrate Judge.
lawsuit do not constitute clear legal prejudice. Id. See also Durham v. Florida East Coast
Railway Company, 385 F.2d 366 (5th Cir. 1967).2
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 shall be dismissed without prejudice on the motion of Plaintiff.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 15) is GRANTED
and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
A separate order follows.
Done this 16th day of September, 2013.
/s/Charles S. Coody
CHARLES S. COODY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
See Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding
precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on
September 30, 1981.
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?