Ebertowski v. Secure Energy Services USA, LLC et al

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 1. That plaintiffs Motion To Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 8 , filed January 18, 2016, construed as a notice of dismissal, is approved; 2. That plaintiffs claims against defendants are dismissed without prejudice; 3. That all currently pending deadlines are vacated; and 3. That this case is closed, by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 1/19/2016. (evana, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 15-cv-02225-REB-BNB
MATTHEW EBERTOWSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.
SECURE ENERGY SERVICES USA, LLC,
SECURE DRILLING, SERVICES USA, LLC, d/b/a
MARQUIS ALLIANCE ENERGY GROUP USA, LLC.,
Defendants.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)
Blackburn, J.
The matter before the court is plaintiff’s Motion To Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41 [#8],1 filed January 18, 2016. Defendants have not yet answered or filed any
potentially dispositive motions. Accordingly, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), no court
order is necessary to effectuate voluntary dismissal, which becomes effective
immediately on filing of notice of plaintiff’s intent to dismiss. See 9 C. Wright, A. Miller,
M. Kane, R. Marcus, and A. Steinman, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2363 (3rd ed.);
Janssen v. Harris, 321 F.3d 998, 1000-01 (10th Cir. 2003); Bunner v. Koch, 2009 WL
798539 at *1 (D. Colo. March 24, 2009).
Plaintiff thus requires no affirmative relief from the court in order to effectuate
dismissal of his claims. Although in that sense his motion is moot, I nevertheless
1

“[#8]” 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.

construe it as a notice of plaintiff’s intent to dismiss voluntarily. As thus construed, I
approve the notice and dismiss plaintiff’s claims without prejudice. See FED. R. CIV.
P. 41(a)(1)(B) (unless specifically indicated by plaintiff or stipulated by all parties,
dismissal under Rule 41 is without prejudice).
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That plaintiff’s Motion To Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 [#8], filed
January 18, 2016, construed as a notice of dismissal, is approved;
2. That plaintiff’s claims against defendants are dismissed without prejudice;
3. That all currently pending deadlines are vacated; and
3. That this case is closed.
Dated January 19, 2016, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2