Boyd v. Carle Foundation Hospital
Filing
28
OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 02/05/2013. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Plaintiff failed to advise this Court. Therefore, Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion (d/e 27 ), provided by Defendant and to which Plaintiff provided the signature page (d/e [27-1]) is GRANTED. The original Unopposed Motion (d/e 25 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (d/e 27 ) is GRANTED. This cause is dismissed, with prejudice, each side to bear his or its own costs. CASE CLOSED.(DM, ilcd)
E-FILED
Tuesday, 05 February, 2013 03:25:47 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
LARRY BOYD,
Plaintiff,
v.
CARLE FOUNDATION HOSPITAL,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 11-2232
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge.
On January 17, 2013, Plaintiff Larry Boyd, appearing pro se,
filed an Unopposed Motion for Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (d/e 25). Plaintiff
requested that the Court dismiss the action with prejudice but
retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.
In a Text Order dated January 17, 2013, this Court advised
Plaintiff that the Court could not retain jurisdiction to enforce a
settlement merely by stating that it was retaining jurisdiction.
Therefore, the Court asked that Plaintiff either file a Motion that did
not request that the Court retain jurisdiction or otherwise advise
the Court how he wished to proceed.
On January 24, 2013, Plaintiff sent the Clerk’s office page 2 of
a document requesting the Court enter an Order dismissing the
action with prejudice and also containing Plaintiff’s signature. See
d/e 27-1. The Clerk’s office also obtained from defense counsel a
copy of the Unopposed Motion for Voluntary Dismissal With
Prejudice Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 that
defense counsel had provided to Plaintiff for filing following the
Court’s first text order. See d/e 27 (removing the retain-jurisdiction
language). In a Text Order dated January 24, 2013, this Court
directed Plaintiff to advise the Court, in writing and by January 30,
2013, whether the Motion provided by defense counsel (d/e 27) was
the Motion Plaintiff intended to file in response to the Court’s
January 17, 2013 Text Order.
Plaintiff failed to advise this Court. Therefore, Plaintiff’s
Unopposed Motion (d/e 27), provided by Defendant and to which
Plaintiff provided the signature page (d/e 27-1) is GRANTED. The
original Unopposed Motion (d/e 25) is DENIED AS MOOT.
For the reasons stated, Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for
Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41 (d/e 27) is GRANTED. This cause is dismissed,
Page 2 of 3
with prejudice, each side to bear his or its own costs. CASE
CLOSED.
ENTER: February 5, 2013
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 3 of 3
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?