Sawyer v. Klee
Filing
4
ORDER DISMISSING CASE Without Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (Chubb, A)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
THOMAS W. SAWYER, #224964,
v.
Plaintiff,
Case No. 13-11011
PAUL KLEE,
HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
HON. CHARLES E. BINDER
Defendants.
/
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION UNDER
FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 41(A)(1)
On March 6, 2013, petitioner Thomas W. Sawyer filed a pro se habeas corpus
petition challenging his 1992 Ingham County convictions for first-degree criminal
sexual conduct, kidnapping, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a
felony. To date, respondent Paul Klee has not filed an answer to the petition or a
motion for summary judgment. On April 2, 2013, Mr. Sawyer filed a letter with the
Court asking the Court to “take whatever appropriate administrative action [is]
necessary to cancel this submission . . . .” (Doc. 3.)
The Court construes Mr. Sawyer’s letter as a notice of voluntary dismissal under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because (1) the letter did not indicate
that the dismissal was to be with prejudice, and (2) the Court has not found any
records indicating that Mr. Sawyer previously dismissed an action based on the
same claim, by rule the dismissal is without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B).
1
The Court hereby grants Plaintiff’s request to dismiss the action. Accordingly,
the Court ORDERS that the petition is voluntarily DISMISSED without prejudice
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
s/Terrence G. Berg
TERRENCE G. BERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 8, 2013
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that this Order was electronically submitted on April 8, 2013, using the
CM/ECF system, which will send notification to each party.
By: s/A. Chubb
Case Manager
2
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?