Naylor v. Allenby et al
Filing
47
ORDER GRANTING Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice; Clerk to Terminate all Pending Motions and Close Case, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/18/2015. (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TROY MITCHELL NAYLOR,
CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01649-LJO-MJS (PC)
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
ORDER GRANTING VOLUNTARY
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
v.
(ECF No. 44)
CLIFF ALLENBY, et al.,
Defendants.
CLERK TO TERMINATE ALL PENDING
MOTIONS AND CLOSE CASE
Plaintiff is a civil detainee who is being held at Coalinga State Hospital. He is
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 5.)
On November 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. (ECF No.
21
44.) It appears from Plaintiff’s motion that he seeks dismissal with prejudice. Plaintiff
22
states that he “realizes that the subject matter can never be re-opened and forfeits any
23
24
future legal action in this matter.” (ECF No. 44 at 2.)
Because Defendant Duvall had already appeared in the action and filed an
25
answer, the Court ordered Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 45.) On
26
December 17, 2015, Defendant Duvall responded that he does not object to Plaintiff’s
27
28
motion for voluntary dismissal. (ECF No. 46.)
1
2
3
4
5
The Court may dismiss an action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2)
at a plaintiff’s request. Plaintiff acknowledges that the dismissal will be with prejudice,
and Defendant does not object.
Accordingly, this action is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk shall
terminate all pending motions and CLOSE this case.
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
December 18, 2015
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?