Romeo v. Browning et al

Filing 14

ORDER Of Dismissal of Defendants, U.S. Repeated Arms Company and Browning Arms Company, Only. The Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) [# 10 ] and the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) [# 11 ] are approved. Plaintiff's claims against defendants, Browning Arms Company and U.S. Repeating Arms Company, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 6/24/2014. (klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00068-REB-KMT
ROBERT ROMEO,
Plaintiff,
v.
BROWNING, a Utah corporation,
BROWNING ARMS COMPANY, a Utah corporation,
OLIN CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation,
U.S. REPEATING ARMS COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, and
JOHN DOE NO. 1,
Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS, U.S. REPEATING ARMS COMPANY
AND BROWNING ARMS COMPANY, ONLY
Blackburn, J.
The following matters are before the court for consideration: (1) Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) [#10]1, regarding defendant,
U.S. Repeating Arms Company; and (2) Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to
F.R.C.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) [#11], regarding defendant Browning Arms Company, both filed
June 23, 2014. After reviewing the notices and the record, I conclude that the notices
should be approved and that plaintiff’s claims against defendants, Browning Arms
Company and U.S. Repeating Arms Company, should be dismissed without prejudice.

1

“[#10]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific
paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention
throughout this order.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i)
[#10], regarding defendant, U.S. Repeating Arms Company, filed June 23, 2014, is
APPROVED;
2. That the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i)
[#11], regarding defendant, Browning Arms Company, filed June 23, 2014, is
APPROVED;
3. That plaintiff’s claims against defendants, Browning Arms Company and U.S.
Repeating Arms Company, are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and
4. That defendants, Browning Arms Company and U.S. Repeating Arms
Company, are DROPPED as named parties to this litigation, and the case caption is
amended accordingly.
Dated June 24, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2