Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00608/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00608-1/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

MICHAEL EUGENE CARTER, )

AIS #155338, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-CV-608-SRW

)

)

CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., )

et al., )

)

 Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

Eugene Carter [“Carter”], a state inmate, in which he challenges the medical treatment

provided to him for his hypertension. The defendants filed answers and special reports,

supported by relevant evidentiarymaterials, in which they addressthe plaintiff’s claimsfor

relief. On October 16, 2012, Carter filed a motion to dismiss this case in which he seeks

dismissal of this case without prejudice. Doc. No. 34.

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

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

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

Case 2:12-cv-00608-SRW Document 37 Filed 10/25/12 Page 1 of 2
constitutes an abuse of this court’s discretion. McCants v. Ford Motor Company, Inc., 781

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

th

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 (5 Cir. 1967).

th

After thorough 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.

1

A separate order will accompany this memorandum opinion.

DONE, this 25 day of October, 2012.

th

/s/ Susan Russ Walker

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The plaintiff is advised that if he seeks to “revive” this cause of action at some time in the future he may do 1

so by filing a separate cause of action with this court. At that time, the court will determine whether the action is

filed within the time allowed by the requisite statute of limitation and will consider whether application of the other

stipulations referenced in his motion to dismiss is appropriate. 

2

Case 2:12-cv-00608-SRW Document 37 Filed 10/25/12 Page 2 of 2