Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00943/USCOURTS-almd-2_10-cv-00943-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ELBERT SIMS, #217355, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:10-CV-943-ID 

) [WO]

)

ALA. DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS )

CLASSIFICATION DIVISION, )

)

 Defendant. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The plaintiff, Elbert Sims [“Sims”], a state inmate, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action

in which he challenges the determination of his classification level based on alleged false

information contained in his prison file. On January 12, 2011, Sims filed a motion to

dismiss in which he seeks dismissal of this case as he is now satisfied with his

classification status. Court Doc. No. 13. Upon consideration of the plaintiff’s motion to

dismiss, the court concludes that this motion is due to be granted and this case dismissed

without prejudice. See Rule 41(a)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

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 2:10-cv-00943-ID-SRW Document 15 Filed 01/25/11 Page 1 of 3
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.

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 February 8, 2011, the parties may file objectionsto this

Recommendation. Any objectionsfiled must clearly identify the findingsin 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 are advised that this

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

Failure to file written 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

2

Case 2:10-cv-00943-ID-SRW Document 15 Filed 01/25/11 Page 2 of 3
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 decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed

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

DONE, this 25 day of January, 2011.

th

/s/ Susan Russ Walker

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:10-cv-00943-ID-SRW Document 15 Filed 01/25/11 Page 3 of 3