Dandridge v. Abbott Laboratories Inc et al

Filing 35

ORDER granting 33 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge James L Graham on 6/29/11. (ds)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Cheryl A. Dandridge,

:

Case No. 10-cv-00864

Plaintiff,

:

Judge Graham

vs.

:

Magistrate Norah King

Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.,
Defendants.

:
:

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF CHERYL A. DANDRIDGE’S
MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Cheryl A. Dandridge’s motion to dismiss her claims
with prejudice. Defendants do not oppose plaintiff’s motion, but instead ask that the court grant the
motion.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), the court may dismiss an action at plaintiff’s request “on terms
that the court considers proper.” Whether to grant the dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is within the sound
discretion of the district court. Grover by Grover v. Eli Lilly and Co., 33 F.3d 716, 718 (6th Cir. 1994).
Courts should consider whether dismissal would prejudice a defendant. See id. (factors include “the
defendant’s effort and expense of preparation for trial, excessive delay and lack of diligence on the part
of the plaintiff in prosecuting the action, insufficient explanation for the need to take a dismissal, and
whether a motion for summary judgment has been filed by the defendant”).
Because none of the defendants object to dismissal, and because none of the defendants have
filed counterclaims against plaintiff or filed any motions for summary judgment, plaintiff’s motion to
dismiss her claims with prejudice (doc. 33) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ James L. Graham
JAMES L. GRAHAM
United States District Judge
Date: June 29, 2011