Harris v. Harig et al

Filing 16

ORDER OF DISMISSAL re Plaintiff's Rule 4, Dismissal Without Prejudice" which is interpreted as a request under Rule 41(a)(2). Plaintiff's claims are dismissed without prejudice and all pending motions are terminated. This matter is CLOSED. Signed by Chief Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM) cc: plaintiff via the U.S. Mail

Download PDF
  1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 CURTIS RAY HARRIS, Plaintiff, Case No. C17-813 RSM ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. DON HARIG, et al., 14 15 Defendants. 16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Curtis Ray Harris’s “Rule 4, Dismissal 17 Without Prejudice.” Dkt. #15. Mr. Harris states that he wishes to have this action dismissed 18 without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A) and that “[n]o Answer or Motion for Summary 19 20 21 Judgement has yet been filed.” Id. Mr. Harris is incorrect; an Answer has been filed in this case. See Dkt. #9. 22 Accordingly, dismissal may not be obtained under Rule 41(a)(1)(A), which allows for dismissal 23 via notice “before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary 24 25 26 judgment.” However, rule 41 otherwise provides for dismissal at the plaintiff’s request by court order on terms that the court considers proper. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). 27 28 ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 1   1 The Court will interpret Mr. Harris’s request under Rule 41(a)(2), and is satisfied that 2 dismissal will not prejudice Defendants, who separately move for dismissal without prejudice. 3 See Dkt. #10 at 3 n.2. 4 5 6 Accordingly, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS: 1) terminated. 7 8 Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. All pending motions are 2) This matter is CLOSED. 9 10 DATED this 29th day of September 2017. 11 A 12 13 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER OF DISMISSAL - 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?