Loja Ojeda et al v. Garland et al
Magistrate Judge David H. Hennessy: ORDER entered. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re #1 Complaint, filed by Jacinto Lema Mishirumbay, Maria Loja Ojeda Objections to R&R due by 11/28/2023.(King, Dawn)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
MARIA LOJA OJEDA and
JACINTO LEMA MISHIRUMBAY,
Civil Action No.
MERRICK B. GARLAND,
United States Attorney General;
Secretary of United States Department of
UR MENDOZA JADDOU,
Director of United States Citizenship and
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES and
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
November 14, 2023
This Court recommends that Plaintiffs’ motion of voluntary dismissal be granted and that
the instant action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Plaintiffs Maria Loja Ojeda and Jacinto Lema Mishirumbay brought a mandamus action
on September 21, 2023, against the United States Attorney General, the Secretary of the United
States Department of Homeland Security, the Director of the United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the United
States Department of Homeland Security (collectively, the Defendants). [Dkt. No. 1 at p. 1].
Plaintiffs sought to compel the Defendants to complete adjudication of Plaintiffs’ Form I-130,
which was allegedly delayed in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the
Administrative Procedures Act, and the U.S. Constitution. Id. at p. 5-6. A summons was issued
and returned by the Defendants. [Dkt. Nos. 5, 9]. Plaintiffs consented to jurisdiction by a
Magistrate Judge on October 13, 2023, but Defendants have not yet consented. [Dkt. No. 11].
On November 13, 2023, Plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss the action pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 41(a)(1)(A)(i) as the underlying dispute had been
resolved. [Dkt. No. 12 at p. 1]. FRCP 41(a)(1) allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action
without a court order by filing either (1) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party has
served either an answer or a motion for summary judgment, or (2) a stipulation of dismissal
signed by all parties who have appeared. Defendants in this action have not filed nor served an
answer or a motion in response to Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
Therefore, the Court recommends that the instant action be DISMISSED without
prejudice as all prerequisites for dismissal pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) have been satisfied.
This action is reassigned to a United States District Judge for final approval of this Report.
/s/ David H. Hennessy
David H. Hennessy
United States Magistrate Judge
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?