Nible v. Knowles, et al.

Filing 109

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 108 Motion to Dismiss Action signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 04/05/2012. CASE CLOSED. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

WILLIAM NIBLE,

10

1:06-cv-01716-BAM PC
Plaintiff,

11

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO DISMISS ACTION

v.
(DOC. 108)

12

E. FLORES,

13

Defendant.

14

/

15
16

Plaintiff William Nible (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

17

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding

18

against Defendant E. Flores for violation of the First Amendment. Pending before the Court is

19

Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss this action, filed March 29, 2012. The Court construes the motion

20

as one pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The motion is

21

unopposed.

22

“Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request

23

only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). The

24

decision to grant a dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) rests with the sound discretion of the district

25

court. Stevedoring Serv. v. Armilla Int’l, B.V., 889 F.3d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 1989); Hamilton v.

26

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982). The Court finds that dismissal

27

of this action is proper. The parties will bear their own costs.

28

//
1

1

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

3
4
5
6

Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, filed March 29, 2012, is granted pursuant to Rule
41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and

2.

The parties are to bear their own costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
10c20k

April 5, 2012

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2