Rushdan v. Gonzales et al
Filing
25
ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Close Action Pursuant to Stipulation for Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 3/24/16. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
KAMALA D. HARRIS, State Bar No. 146672
Attorney General of California
CHRISTOPHER J. BECKER, State Bar No. 230529
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
DIANA ESQUIVEL, State Bar No. 202954
Deputy Attorney General
1300 I Street, Suite 125
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Telephone: (916) 445-4928
Facsimile: (916) 324-5205
E-mail: Diana.Esquivel@doj.ca.gov
7
Attorneys for Defendants
8
9
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
FRESNO DIVISION
12
13
SALADIN RUSHDAN,
No. 1:14-cv-01807 DLB
14
15
v.
16
17
Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF
COURT TO CLOSE ACTION
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION FOR
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE
J. GONZALES, et al.,
18
(Document 24)
Defendants.
19
20
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff Saladin Rushdan (aka
21
22
23
24
Robert S. Woods), by and through specially appearing pro bono counsel, Douglas Thorn, and
Defendants, by and through their counsel of record, stipulate to the voluntary dismissal of this
action with prejudice.
Each party is to bear his own costs, attorney’s fees, and expenses. There is no prevailing
25
26
27
28
party in this action.
///
///
1
Stipulation for Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice and Order (1:14-cv-01807 DLB)
1
2
Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the Clerk of the
Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to close this case.1
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
Dated:
/s/ Dennis
March 24, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
28
L. Beck
The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge.
2
Stipulation for Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice and Order (1:14-cv-01807 DLB)
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?