Case ID: f-appx_87/html/0992-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, ex rel. John Ernest BOUNDY, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee, v. Bernard Joseph DOLENZ; Dolenz Clinic, Defendant-Counter Claimants-Appellants.
    No. 03-10143.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 19, 2004.
    
      Alicia Grace Curran, Burt Barr & Associates, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee.
    Bernard J. Dolenz, pro se, Beaumont, TX, for Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant.
    Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Bernard Dolenz, federal prisoner # 31480-077, appeals following the district court’s grant of John Boundy’s motion to dismiss without prejudice his qui tam suit filed on behalf of the United States. Boundy’s motion to file a response to Dolenz’s reply brief is DENIED.

Dolenz argues that Boundy filed his motion to voluntarily dismiss his complaint because he had received an adverse ruling on his motion for a summary judgment in his favor and was attempting to avoid an unfavorable result in the proceedings. Dolenz contends that Boundy would have not succeeded in his qui tam action because he was not an original source under the False Claim Act and did not have standing to bring the action. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(3)(4).

We review a Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) dismissal without prejudice for abuse of discretion. A motion for voluntary dismissal should be granted “unless the non-moving party will suffer some plain legal prejudice other than the mere prospect of a second lawsuit.” Elbaor v. Tripath Imaging Inc., 279 F.3d 314, 317 (5th Cir.2002). Dolenz has not shown that he will suffer plain legal prejudice from the dismissal "without prejudice. See id. at 317-19; Manshack v. Southwestern Elec. Power Co., 915 F.2d 172, 174 (5th Cir.1990). His arguments in his appellate brief challenging Boundy’s standing as an original source are without merit. See U.S. ex rel. Laird v. Lockheed Martin Engineering and Science Services Co., 336 F.3d 346, 352-55 (5th Cir.2003). We do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. Peavy v. WFAA-TV, Inc., 221 F.3d 158, 179 (5th Cir.2000). Also, Dolenz may re-urge his challenge to Boundy’s standing as an original source if Boundy refiles his qui tam action. We do not address his other issues on appeal given the current status of the case.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.