Hyland v. TransFirst LLC et al
ORDER dismissing this action with prejudice, as of 9/30/15, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 10/2/15. (dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01824-LTB
KARI D’OTTAVIO; and
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
Plaintiff, Charles Hyland, initiated this action pro se on August 24, 2015, by filing
a Title VII Complaint (ECF No. 1) and Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs (ECF No. 2). On August 26, he was denied leave to proceed
in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and directed to pay the required filing
fee (ECF No. 4).
On September 30, 2015, Counsel entered an appearance on behalf of
Defendants (ECF No. 8). Also on that date, the parties filed a Stipulation for Dismissal
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. p. 41(a)(l)(A)(ii) wherein they request that the Court dismiss
this lawsuit with prejudice (ECF No. 9).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 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; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal
signed by all parties who have appeared.” 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). The
Stipulation of Dismissal, therefore, closes the file as of September 30, 2015. Hyde
Constr. Co., 388 F.2d at 507. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the action is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a)(1)(A)(ii) effective as of September 30, 2015. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are DENIED as moot.
DATED October 2, 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?