Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00062/USCOURTS-almd-2_14-cv-00062-2/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER M. KEISS, #287 263, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:14-CV-62-WKW

) [WO]

COMMISSIONER KIM THOMAS, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On May 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which the court

considers a motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a),

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Upon consideration of Plaintiff's motion to dismiss, the

court concludes that the motion is due to be granted. Furthermore, the court concludes that

this case should be dismissed without prejudice. See Rule 41(a)(2), Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

Dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), F.R.Civ.P., at the insistence

of Plaintiff is committed to the sound discretion of this court, and absent some plain legal

prejudice to Defendants, denial of the dismissal constitutes an abuse of this court’s

discretion. McCants v. Ford Motor Company, Inc., 781 F.2d 855 (11 Cir. 1986). Simple

th

litigation costs, inconvenience to Defendants, and the prospect of a second or subsequent

lawsuit do not constitute clear legal prejudice. Id. See also Durham v. Florida East Coast

Case 2:14-cv-00062-WKW-TFM Document 25 Filed 05/23/14 Page 1 of 3
Railway Company, 385 F.2d 366 (5 Cir. 1967).

th

The court has carefully reviewed the file in this case and determined that even if

Defendants were given an opportunity to file a response to Plaintiff's motion to dismiss, they

would not be able to demonstrate the existence of clear legal prejudice. Consequently, the

court concludes that this case should be dismissed without prejudice on the motion of

Plaintiff.

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

1. Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 24) be GRANTED.

2. This case be DISMISSED without prejudice.

3. No costs be taxed herein.

It is further

ORDERED that on or before June 9, 2014, the parties may file an objection to the

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

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous, conclusive or

general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised this

Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file a written objection 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

-2-

Case 2:14-cv-00062-WKW-TFM Document 25 Filed 05/23/14 Page 2 of 3
District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5 Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d

th

33 (11 Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11 Cir. 1981) (en

th th

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 May 2014.

/s/Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-

Case 2:14-cv-00062-WKW-TFM Document 25 Filed 05/23/14 Page 3 of 3