Concannon v. Nebraska Department of Corrections et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Plaintiff's request for dismissal of this action (Filing No. 20 ) is granted. Accordingly, this matter is dismissed without prejudice. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed/e-mailed to pro se party)(DKM, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
KEVIN CONCANNON,
Plaintiff,
v.
NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:14CV3173

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s correspondence dated July 9, 2015
(Filing No. 20), which the court liberally construes as a motion to voluntarily dismiss
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Rule 41(a) states that 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.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). In addition, Rule 41(a)(2) provides that an action may be
dismissed at the plaintiff’s request “on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Here, Plaintiff asks the court to dismiss this action and
Defendants have not been served with process. Accordingly,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiff’s request for dismissal of this action (Filing No. 20) is granted.
Accordingly, this matter is dismissed without prejudice.

2.
A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this
Memorandum and Order.
DATED this 16th day of July, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District
of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they
provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The
court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases
to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.

2