Brooks v. Colvin

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that 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. (JSF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MELLISA BROOKS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:14CV33

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Notice of Dismissal. (Filing No.
21.) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, a plaintiff may dismiss an action by filing a notice
of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for
summary judgment, or by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who
have appeared. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). In addition, a court may grant a request for
voluntary dismissal “on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a)(2).
Plaintiff filed her Notice of Dismissal on June 5, 2014. (Filing No. 21.) In her
Notice, Plaintiff asks the court to dismiss this matter because “the Social Security
Administration calculated and paid benefits to Brooks–rending this matter moot.”
(Id.) Defendant has not served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. (See
Docket Sheet.) In light of this, and in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), this
matter is dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

This matter is dismissed without prejudice.

2.
A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this
Memorandum and Order.
DATED this 24th day of June, 2014.
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