Sammons v. Rino International Corporation

Filing 34

ORDER that in light of Plaintiff's 29 Motion to Dismiss which the Court construes as a notice of voluntary dismissal the Clerk of Court shall close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 12/20/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 MICHAEL SAMMONS, 4 5 6 7 8 ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) ) RINO INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, ) ) Defendant. ) ) Case No.: 2:14-cv-00574-GMN-VCF ORDER 9 Pending before the Court is the unopposed Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 29), filed by 10 11 pro se Plaintiff Mike Sammons (“Plaintiff”).1 For the reasons discussed below, the Court 12 orders the Clerk of Court to close this case. 13 On February 13, 2015, the Court adopted a Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 11), 14 filed by the Honorable Cam Ferenbach, United States Magistrate Judge, recommending that the 15 Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, (ECF No. 10), and dismiss Plaintiff’s 16 Complaint, (ECF No. 1), for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (Order 1:17–19, ECF No. 18). 17 Plaintiff appealed the Court’s Order, and on November 21, 2016, the Ninth Circuit reversed the 18 Court’s dismissal of the Complaint and remanded the case back to this Court. (See Ninth Cir. 19 Mandate, ECF No. 31). Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Dismiss, explaining that 20 “he has successfully secured the relief he sought in state court.” (Mot. to Dismiss at 1). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Rino International Corporation (“Defendant”) was 21 22 served on April 19, 2014, (ECF No. 7); however, Defendant has never appeared in this case. 23 The Court therefore construes Plaintiff’s Motion as a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to 24 1 25 In light of Plaintiff’s status as a pro se litigant, the Court has liberally construed his filings, holding them to standards less stringent than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Page 1 of 2 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). Pursuant to Rule 41(a), “the plaintiff may dismiss an 2 action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves 3 either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because 4 Defendant has neither filed an answer nor a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff’s dismissal 5 is effective without the Court’s order. See id. 6 Accordingly, 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, in light of Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 8 29), which the Court construes as a notice of voluntary dismissal, the Clerk of Court shall close 9 this case. 10 20 DATED this ____ day of December, 2016. 11 12 13 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 2 of 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?