Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00146/USCOURTS-almd-2_16-cv-00146-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM RANDALL BURNETTE )

AIS #135390, )

 ) 

 Plaintiff, )

 v. ) CASE NO. 2:16-CV-146-WHA 

)

KARLA JONES, )

 )

 Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on a complaint filed by 

William Randall Burnette (“Burnette”), an indigent state inmate, challenging actions taken 

against him at the Ventress Correctional Facility. On June 1, 2016, Burnette filed a motion 

to dismiss this case (Doc. No. 45). 

Upon consideration of the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, the court concludes that this 

motion is due to be granted and that this case should be dismissed without prejudice. 

II. DISCUSSION

Dismissal without prejudice at the insistence of the plaintiff pursuant to Rule 

41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is committed to the sound discretion of 

this court and, absent some plain legal prejudice to the defendants, denial of the dismissal 

constitutes an abuse of this court’s discretion. McCants v. Ford Motor Company, Inc., 781 

Case 2:16-cv-00146-WHA-SRW Document 46 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 3
2

F.2d 855 (11th Cir. 1986). Simple litigation costs, inconvenience to the defendants, and/or 

the prospect of a second or subsequent lawsuit do not constitute clear legal prejudice. Id. 

See also Durham v. Florida East Coast Railway Company, 385 F.2d 366 (5th Cir. 1967). 

After review of the pleadings filed by the parties, the court concludes that this case is due 

to be dismissed without prejudice on the motion of the plaintiff.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:

1. The plaintiff’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED.

2. This case be DISMISSED without prejudice. 

3. No costs be taxed herein. 

It is further 

ORDERED that on or before June 15, 2016 the plaintiff may file objections to the 

Recommendation. The plaintiff must specifically identify the factual findings and legal 

conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is made; frivolous, conclusive, or 

general objections will not be considered. Failure to file written objections to the 

Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations in accordance with the provisions of 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall bar a de novo determination by the District Court of legal and 

factual issues covered in the Recommendation and waives the right of the plaintiff to 

challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal 

conclusions accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error 

Case 2:16-cv-00146-WHA-SRW Document 46 Filed 06/01/16 Page 2 of 3
3

or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982); 11TH CIR. R. 3-

1. See Stein v. Lanning Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. 

City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc). 

DONE, on this the 1st day of June, 2016.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker

Susan Russ Walker

Chief United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:16-cv-00146-WHA-SRW Document 46 Filed 06/01/16 Page 3 of 3