Roche v. Lincoln College of Technology et al
Filing
22
ORDER Dismissing Case. ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw Title VII Action filed on August 7, 2013, 21 , is construed as a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal and is effective as of August 7, 2013, the date Plaintiff filed the Notice in this action, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 8/15/13.(sgrim)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01204-BNB
JOHN JOSEPH ROCHE,
Plaintiff,
v.
LINCOLN COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY, Denver, et al.,
ALLAN SHORT, Executive Director, Denver Campus,
SUE KUHL, Academic Dean, Denver Campus, and
STEVE LASECKE, Education Supervisor, Denver Campus,
Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
Plaintiff, John Joseph Roche, currently resides in Aurora, Colorado. On May 7,
2013, Plaintiff submitted a Complaint to the Court claiming wrongful termination from
employment. Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland reviewed the Complaint, found it was
deficient, and directed Plaintiff to file his claims on a Court-approved form and state the
proper jurisdiction for his claims. On June 20, 2013, Plaintiff complied with Magistrate
Judge Boland’s Order. Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer then entered an order on July
9, 2013, directing Plaintiff to respond and show cause why the Court should not
disregard jurisdiction under Title VII in this action. In response to Magistrate Shaffer’s
Order, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Withdraw Title VII Action on August 7, 2013.
The Court construes the Motion to Withdraw liberally because Plaintiff is a pro se
litigant. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d
1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). For the following reasons, the Court will dismiss the
action.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A) provides that “the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court
order by filing: (i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an
answer or a motion for summary judgment . . . .” Defendant has not filed an answer in
this action. Further, a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is effective
immediately upon the filing of a written notice of dismissal, and no subsequent
court order is necessary. See 8-41 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice
§ 41.33(6)(a) (3d ed. 1997); Hyde Constr. Co. v. Koehring Co., 388 F.2d 501, 507 (10th
Cir. 1968). The Motion, therefore, is construed as a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. The
case will be closed as of August 7, 2013, the date the Notice was filed with the Court.
See Hyde Constr. Co., 388 F.2d at 507. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw Title VII Action filed on August 7, 2013,
ECF No. 21, is construed as a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal and is effective as of
August 7, 2013, the date Plaintiff filed the Notice in this action.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 15th day of
August , 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court
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?