Scott v. Branham
ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice, as of 9/23/15, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 9/28/15. (dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01816-LTB
CHARLA BRANHAM, Arapahoe City Court Reporter,
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
Plaintiff, Marquis Scott, initiated this action pro se on August 21, 2015, by filing a
Complaint (ECF No. 1) and Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs (ECF No. 3). On August 26, 2015, he was denied leave to proceed in
forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (ECF No. 4).
On September 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal wherein
he requests that the Court dismiss this lawsuit (ECF No. 6). For the reasons stated
below, this lawsuit will be dismissed without prejudice.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) 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 . . . .” In this case, no responsive
pleading has been filed by the Defendants. Further, a voluntary dismissal under Rule
41(a)(1) is effective immediately upon the filing of a written notice of dismissal, and no
subsequent court order is necessary. See J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice ¶
41.02(2) (2d ed. 1995); Hyde Constr. Co. v. Koehring Co., 388 F.2d 501, 507 (10th Cir.
1968). Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss, therefore, closes the file as of September 23, 2015.
Hyde Constr. Co., 388 F.2d at 507. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the action is dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the voluntary dismissal is without prejudice and is
effective as of September 23, 2015, the date Plaintiff filed his Motion to Dismiss (ECF
No. 6) requesting voluntary dismissal of this action.
DATED September 28, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court
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?