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)

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