Mamadou v. Harrah's Casino & Hotel

Filing 5

ORDER granting 4 Motion to Dismiss; this action dismissed without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 4/4/17. (tab)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
ABDOULAYE MAMADOU

PLAINTIFF

V.

NO. 4:16-CV-00166-DMB-JMV

HARRAH’S CASINO & HOTEL

DEFENDANT

ORDER
This employment discrimination action is before the Court on the motion to dismiss of
Abdoulaye Mamadou. Doc. #4.
I
Procedural History
On July 17, 2016, Abdoulaye Mamadou filed a pro se complaint in this Court against
Harrah’s Casino & Hotel.

Doc. #1.

In his complaint, Mamadou alleges that Harrah’s

discriminated against him on the bases of his race (African American) and national origin
(Mauritanian). Mamadou also alleges retaliation and a claim for disability discrimination.
On October 24, 2016, the Clerk of the Court issued a notice of incomplete process on
Harrah’s. Doc. #3. Four days later, on October 28, 2016, Mamadou submitted a letter to the
Court stating, in relevant part: “Please allow this letter to serve as a request to withdraw the
above mentioned case, which is pending regarding myself, Abdoulaye Mamadou against
Harrah’s Casino and Hotel. After careful consideration, this decision is in my best interest at this
time.” Doc. #4.
II
Analysis
Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a “plaintiff may
dismiss an action without a court order by filing … a notice of dismissal before the opposing

party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” “Unless the notice or
stipulation states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B).
While Rule 41(a)(1)(A) refers to stipulations and notices, “once a plaintiff has moved to dismiss
under Rule 41(a)(A)(i), the case is effectively terminated.” Bechuck v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,
814 F.3d 287, 291 (5th Cir. 2016); Carter v. United States, 547 F.2d 258, 258 n.2 (5th Cir. 1977)
(“[W]e attribute no significance to plaintiff’s styling of the document as a ‘motion to dismiss’
rather than a ‘notice of dismissal,’ the phrase used in [R]ule 41(a)(1).”).
Here, the Court interprets Mamadou’s request, which was made before Harrah’s either
answered or filed a motion for summary judgment, as a request for dismissal under Rule
41(a)(1)(A).

This request effectively terminated the case.

Bechuck, 814 F.3d at 291.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss [4] is GRANTED and this action is DISMISSED without
prejudice. See Carter, 547 F.2d at 258 (where pro se plaintiff filed motion pursuant to Rule
41(a)(1)(A), district court should have dismissed case without prejudice).
SO ORDERED, this 4th day of April, 2017.

/s/ Debra M. Brown
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2