Heiden v. Webster City Police Dept et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. Referral of this case to Magistrate Judge Leonard T Strand is withdrawn. 26 Pro Se Motion to Dismiss This Suit/Action is granted, and this case is dismissed in its entirety, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Each party shall bear its own costs. Signed by Judge Mark W Bennett on 5/13/2014. (copy w/nef to non-ecf filer) (des)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
CENTRAL DIVISION
WADE CHARLES HEIDEN,
No. C 12-3044-MWB
Plaintiff,
vs.
WEBSTER CITY POLICE
DEPARTMENT, SHERIFF’S OFFICE,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants.
___________________________
Plaintiff Wade Charles Heiden initiated this action on July 9, 2012, by filing his
pro se Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant To 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (docket no. 1), alleging
constitutional violations arising from his arrest on or about October 29, 2010. This action
is now before me, however, on Heiden’s April 24, 2014, Motion To Dismiss This
Suit/Action (docket no. 26), in which Heiden asserts that he was under the influence of
methamphetamine when the arrest happened and that, as a consequence, he “had the
wrong incident, wrong date, wrong actors” for this lawsuit. He requests that this case
be dismissed with all costs and fees billed to him.
On April 24, 2014, by Order (docket no. 27) filed in the ordinary course of
managing § 1983 actions, Heiden’s entire action was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge Leonard Strand, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for review of the record
and the pleadings, the conduct of any necessary evidentiary hearings, the hearing of any
oral argument that may be necessary, and the submission to the undersigned of a report
and recommended disposition of the case. Upon further review, however, I conclude
that judicial efficiency and the interests of justice would be best served with withdrawing
that referral and ruling on Heiden’s Motion To Dismiss directly. I also conclude that

Heiden’s Motion To Dismiss this case voluntarily should be granted pursuant to Rule
41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
THEREFORE,
1.

The April 24, 2014, referral of this case to United States Magistrate Judge

Leonard Strand, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), is withdrawn;
2.

Plaintiff Heiden’s April 24, 2014, Motion To Dismiss This Suit/Action

(docket no. 26) is granted, and this case is dismissed in its entirety, pursuant to Rule
41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and
3.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 13th day of May, 2014.

______________________________________
MARK W. BENNETT
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

2