Shipp v. Murphy et al

Filing 65

ORDER dismissing Plaintiff's claims without prejudice against Defendants Lorene Lomax, Melissa Stoner, Diane Cunningham and Kimberly Hoffman pursuant to 64 Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Craig Shipp. Signed by Honorable Susan O. Hickey on June 10, 2019. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
CRAIG SHIPP
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 4:18-cv-4017

MELISSA STONER, DIANE
CUNNINGHAM, KIMBERLY
HOFFMAN, LORENE LOMAX, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Craig Shipp’s Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice of
Defendants Cunningham, Hoffmann, Lomax, and Stoner Only. (ECF No. 64). The Court is
informed that the stipulation is unopposed. Thus, the Court finds that no response is necessary
and that the matter is ripe for consideration.
Plaintiff seeks to dismiss without prejudice his claims against Defendants Melissa Stoner,
Diane Cunningham, Kimberly Hoffman, and Lorene Lomax. To that end, he has filed a stipulation
of dismissal as to those Defendants.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 governs the dismissal of actions. An action may be
dismissed by “a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Plaintiff’s stipulation is not signed by all parties who have appeared in this case.
Thus, the instant stipulation cannot be considered a valid Rule 41 stipulation. This does not
preclude the Court from granting the relief sought, however.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), an action may be dismissed by court
order at the plaintiff’s request, on terms the court considers proper. “Voluntary dismissal under
Rule 41(a)(2) should not be granted if a party will be prejudiced by the dismissal.” Adams v. USAA
Cas. Ins. Co., 863 F.3d 1069, 1079 (8th Cir. 2017).

The Court construes the instant stipulation as a motion requesting Rule 41 dismissal as to
Defendants Cunningham, Hoffmann, Lomax, and Stoner. Upon consideration, the Court finds that
good cause for the motion has been shown. No party will be prejudiced by dismissing Plaintiffs’
claims against Defendants Cunningham, Hoffmann, Lomax, and Stoner. Indeed, Defendants
Cunningham, Hoffmann, Lomax, and Stoner do not oppose the instant motion.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 64) is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims
against Defendants Melissa Stoner, Diane Cunningham, Kimberly Hoffman, and Lorene Lomax
are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Plaintiff’s claims against the other

Defendants to this case shall remain.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 10th day of June, 2019.
/s/ Susan O. Hickey
Susan O. Hickey
Chief United States District Judge

2