Williams v. The Beach Company
Filing
5
ORDER CLOSING CASE, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 3/14/2017. CASE CLOSED. (Hall, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LEEROY WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
13
14
THE BEACH COMPANY, et al.
Defendants.
15
) CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00274 LJO JLT
)
) ORDER CLOSING CASE
) (Doc. 4)
)
)
)
)
)
)
16
17
On March 13, 2017, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the case. (Doc. 4)
18
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41 provides that “the plaintiff may dismiss an action without
19
a court order by filing: (i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or
20
a motion for summary judgment . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). Once such a notice has been
21
filed, an order of the Court is not required to make the dismissal effective. Fed. R. Civ. P.
22
41(a)(1)(ii); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). No defendant has
23
appeared in this action.
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
1
1
2
Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this action in light of the notice of
dismissal without prejudice filed and properly signed pursuant to Rule 41(a).
3
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
March 14, 2017
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
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
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?