Williams, v. Midland Funding, LLC, et al.,
Filing
40
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE. The 39 Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice is brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), but the Plaintiff fails to comply with such rule, which requires signatures "by all parties who have appeared." The Court construes the document as a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Finding Plaintiffs request proper, the matter is dismissed with prejudice and all remaining deadlines and conference dates are hereby vacated. Each party will pay his or its own attorney's fees and costs. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 10/1/13. (mnfsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02844-MEH
WADE A. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MIDLAND FUNDING LLC,
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., and
ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC.,
Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
______________________________________________________________________________
The Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice filed by the Plaintiff [docket #39] is brought
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), but the Plaintiff fails to comply with such rule, which
requires signatures “by all parties who have appeared.” However, construing the pro se Plaintiff’s
filings liberally, the Court construes the document as a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).
Finding Plaintiff’s request proper, the matter is dismissed with prejudice and all remaining deadlines
and conference dates are hereby vacated. Each party will pay his or its own attorney’s fees and
costs.
Dated at Denver, Colorado this 1st day of October, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
Michael E. Hegarty
United States Magistrate Judge
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?