Ronje v. Kramer, et al.
Filing
11
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/23/2016 regarding 10 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. CASE CLOSED.(Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
EDWARD RONJE,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
v.
(ECF No. 10)
NORM KRAMER, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
Case No. 1:15-cv-01753-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
CLOSE CASE AND ADJUST DOCKET TO
REFLECT VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
Plaintiff Edward Ronje (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma
18
pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on
19
November 19, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) On December 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
20
dismissal of this action. (ECF No. 10.)
21
“[U]nder Rule 41(a)(1)(i), a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss
22
his action prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for summary judgment.”
23
Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999)
24
(quotation and citation omitted). “[A] dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no
25
court order is required, the parties are left as though no action had been brought, the defendant
26
can’t complain, and the district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it.” Id. at 1078. No
27
defendant has been served in this action and no defendant has filed an answer or motion for
28
summary judgment.
1
1
Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY ORDERED to CLOSE the file in this
2
case and adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice under
3
Rule 41(a). All pending motions, if any, are terminated.
4
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Barbara
December 23, 2016
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
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?