Drummond v. Spartanburg County Jail et al
ORDER: Plaintiff's action against Defendant McDonald is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 6/23/2016. (mcot, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Sargent Blackwell, kitchen; Major Neal
Urch, Director; Asley McCann, Legal;
Det. Brock; Det. Reyes; Dr. McDonald,
C/A No.: 5:15-cv-04713-MGL-KDW
This matter before the Court concerns Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Defendant McDonald
from this action. ECF No. 63.
Plaintiff filed his first Motion to Amend the Complaint on April 11, 2016, seeking leave
to add Dr. McDonald as a Defendant. ECF No. 32. The Court granted the motion, ECF No. 40,
the amended pleading was attached to the Complaint as a Supplemental Pleading, ECF No. 1-5,
and Dr. McDonald was added as a Defendant on May 4, 2016, ECF No. 41. Defendant
McDonald filed an Answer to the Complaint on May 13, 2016, denying the allegations in the
Complaint and asserting defenses to the claims. ECF No. 49. On the same date that Defendant
McDonald filed his Answer, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend his Complaint seeking to add Eric
Fluckinger as a Defendant. ECF No. 50. Plaintiff alleged that Dr. Fluckinger was a mental health
worker and was “part of the conspiracy and help[ed] Dr. McDonald drug [him] up on a powerful
drug called Seroquel.” Id. at 4.
On May 31, 2016, Defendant McDonald filed a Response objecting to Plaintiff’s Motion
to Amend. ECF No. 62. Defendant McDonald contended that “any treatment by Dr. Eric at
Mental Health is a separate matter and that Dr. Eric is not a necessary party to this action.” Id. at
2. Defendant McDonald also took the position that the matters pertaining to him in this case
related to claims asserted in a separate case filed by Plaintiff and already under consideration by
the Court in connection with Defendant McDonald’s pending Motion for Summary Judgment
(Civil Action No. 5:15-cv-4285-MGL-KDW). Id.
On June 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Not Add Eric Mental Health Dr,” ECF No.
63, which was docketed as a Withdrawal of Motion to Amend, ECF No. 50. The entirety of the
Motion states as follows:
I don’t wish to prolong civil action! I will fight that war another day, I motion not
to add Eric and to drop MD McDonald. I have got control of my mental issues
and wish to drop both Dr.
ECF No. 63.
On June 10, 2016, Defendant McDonald responded to Plaintiff’s Motion for Withdrawal.
ECF No. 73. Defendant McDonald agreed that “he should be dropped as a Defendant in this
action and he hereby consents to the entry of an Order pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure dismissing him as a Defendant in this action, with prejudice.” Id. at 1.
Defendant McDonald also filed a proposed Order of Dismissal. ECF No. 73-1.
Under Rule 41(a)(2), a district court may dismiss an action “at the plaintiff’s request only
by a court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). “The
purpose of Rule 41(a)(2) is freely to allow voluntary dismissals unless the parties will be unfairly
prejudiced.” Davis v. USX Corp., 819 F.2d 1270, 1273 (4th Cir. 1987). “In considering a motion
for voluntary dismissal, the district court must focus primarily on protecting the interests of the
defendant.” Id. “A plaintiff’s motion under Rule 41(a)(2) should not be denied absent substantial
prejudice to the defendant.” Andes v. Versant Corp., 788 F.2d 1033, 1036 (4th Cir. 1986). Unless
the order states otherwise, a dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a)(2). Plaintiff has indicated that he seeks to dismiss his case against Defendant McDonald,
and Defendant McDonald has consented to such. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s action against
Defendant McDonald is DIMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 23rd day of June, 2016, in Columbia, South Carolina.
s/ Mary Geiger Lewis
MARY GEIGER LEWIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?