Hicks v. Family Dollar Stores of Alabama LLC et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge John E Ott on 5/15/2017. (KAM, )

FILED
2017 May-15 AM 11:22
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISCTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHARLES HICKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
FAMILY DOLLAR STORES OF
ALABAMA, LLC, d/b/a Family Dollar,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:16-cv-1122-JEO

MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this action, Plaintiff Charles Hicks brings claims under state-law tort
theories against Family Dollar Stores of Alabama, LLC and Realty Income
Properties 29, LLC (collectively “Defendants”), based on an incident in which
Plaintiff was shot during a robbery while he was shopping at a Family Dollar store
in Tuscaloosa. (Doc. 1-1 at 3-7). Plaintiff originally filed the action in Alabama
state court on June 8, 2016, and Defendants removed it to this court based on
diversity one month later. (id.; Doc. 1). The parties have consented to an exercise
of plenary jurisdiction by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc.
7).
On June 28, 2017, both of Plaintiff’s retained attorneys filed respective
motions to withdraw, each reciting that Plaintiff had given notice that he desired to

end the client-attorney relationship. (Docs. 11, 12). The court set those motions
for a hearing, to be held on May 12, 2017, at 3:00 p.m., ordering that Plaintiff
himself must also attend. (Doc. 13). On May 12, 2017, before the time set for the
hearing, Plaintiff himself filed one-page letter document stating that he “[is]
dropping the law suit.” (Doc. 14). The hearing on the motions to withdraw then
proceeded as scheduled, with Plaintiff participating by phone. At that time,
Plaintiff reiterated to the court that he did not wish to pursue his lawsuit. The
court explained that a dismissal at this point would be with prejudice, meaning he
would not be able to re-file his claims. Plaintiff stated that he understood, and he
confirmed that he wanted the action to be dismissed.
Based on the foregoing, the court will treat Plaintiff’s one-page pro se filing
of May 12th (Doc. 14) as a motion for a voluntary dismissal, pursuant to FED. R.
CIV. P. 41(a)(2), and will grant such motion. The court will also moot the pending
motions to withdraw (Docs. 11, 12). A separate final order will be entered.
DONE this 15th day of May, 2017.

___________________________
JOHN E. OTT
Chief United States Magistrate Judge