Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_03-cv-00670/USCOURTS-almd-2_03-cv-00670-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

GREGORY BOYKINS, #107120, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:03-CV-670-A

) WO

)

GWENDOLYN MOSLEY, et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On August 16, 2005, the plaintiff, Gregory Boykins [“Boykins”], filed a notice of

voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(i), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In this

notice, Boykins states that immediate dismissal of t his case without prejudice is

appropriate as there has been no “ service by the adverse party of an answer or of a motion

for summary judgment . . .” 

Upon review of the documents filed by the parties, the court concludes t hat t his

case is due to be dismissed in accordance with the notice of dismissal filed by Boykins.

I. DISCUSSION

 “Rule 41(a)(1)[(i)] permits a plaintiff to dismiss voluntarily an action without

prejudice without first seeking leave from the court as long as the defendant has not yet

Case 2:03-cv-00670-WHA-SRW Document 117 Filed 08/23/05 Page 1 of 4
2

filed either an answer or a motion for summary judgment, whichever occurs first.”

Pontenberg v. Boston Scientific Corp., 252 F.3d 1253, 1255 (11th Cir. 2001) (emphasis in

original). “It is well established that Rule 41(a)(1)(i) grant s a p laintiff an unconditional right

to dismiss his complaint by notice and without an order of the court at any time prior to the

defendant’s service of an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Pilot Freight

Carriers, [Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters,] 506 F.2d [914,] 916 [(5t h Cir.

1975)] (‘Rule 41(a)(1) means precisely what it says.’); Williams [v. Ezell], 531 F.2d [1261,]

1264 [(5th Cir. 1976)] (‘The court had no power or discret ion to deny plaintiff's right to

dismiss or to attach any condition or burden to that right.’); Carter v. United States, 547

F.2d 258, 259 (5th Cir.1977) (‘As the plain terms of Rule 41(a)(1)(i) establish, a plaintiff has

an absolute right to dismiss a lawsuit before the defendant has filed an answer or summary

judgment motion.’); Exxon Corp. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 599 F.2d 659, 661 (5th Cir.1979)

(‘Rule 41(a)(1) grants a p laint iff the right to dismiss ‘an action’ at an early stage of the

proceedings volunt arily, without prejudice, and without consent of the court.’). The

dismissal is effective immediately upon the filing of a written notice of dismissal, and no

subsequent court order is required.” Matthews v. Gaither, 902 F.2d 877, 880 (11th Cir. 1990);

University of South Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 409 (11th Cir. 1999)

(“Ordinarily, a Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal is effective immediately and requires no

Case 2:03-cv-00670-WHA-SRW Document 117 Filed 08/23/05 Page 2 of 4
1

Although no action is required by this court to effectuate dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(i), the

court deems issuance of this Recommendation essential to the appropriate dismissal of this cause of

action.

3

action by t he district court.”); see also Williams v. Clarke, 82 F.3d 270, 273 (8th Cir.1996)

(holding that a voluntary dismissal “‘render[s] t he p roceedings a nullity and leave[s] the

parties as if the action had never been brought’”) (internal quotation marks omitted)).1

 

A t horough review of the documents filed by the defendants reveals that no answer

or motion for summary judgment has been filed in this case. Thus, in accordance with t he

provisions of Rule 41(a)(1)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court concludes

that this case is subject to immediate dismissal on the plaintiff’s notice of dismissal. 

II. CONCLUSION 

Accordingly, it is the RECOM M ENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case

be dismissed pursuant to the notice of dismissal filed by t he p laintiff on August 16, 2005.

It is further 

ORDERED t hat on or before September 5, 2005 the parties may file objections to the

Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous,

conclusive or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties

Case 2:03-cv-00670-WHA-SRW Document 117 Filed 08/23/05 Page 3 of 4
4

are advised t hat t his Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is

not appealable.

Failure to file writ ten objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by

the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the

District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v . Reynolds 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), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed

down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

DONE, this 23rd day of August, 2005.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Case 2:03-cv-00670-WHA-SRW Document 117 Filed 08/23/05 Page 4 of 4