Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00940/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00940-2/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

CARLOS CAREY, #245 045, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-940-WHA

) [WO]

MS. BOBEN, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On October 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which the court 

considers a motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure Rule 41(a). Upon consideration of Plaintiff's motion to dismiss, the court concludes 

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

dismissed without prejudice. See F. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). 

A voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is committed to the sound discretion of this

court, and should be granted “unless the defendant will suffer clear legal prejudice.” McCants v. 

Ford Motor Co., Inc., 781 F.2d 855, 857 (11th Cir. 1986). Simple litigation costs, inconvenience

to a defendant, and the prospect of a second or subsequent lawsuit do not constitute clear legal

prejudice. See id.; Goodwin v. Reynolds, 757 F.3d 1216, 1219 (11th Cir. 2014).

The court has carefully reviewed the file and determined that even if Defendants were 

given an opportunity to file a response to Plaintiff's motion to dismiss, they could not demonstrate 

the existence of clear legal prejudice. Consequently, the court concludes this case should be 

dismissed without prejudice on the motion of Plaintiff.

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

Case 2:15-cv-00940-WHA-WC Document 28 Filed 10/13/16 Page 1 of 2
1. Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 27) be GRANTED.

2. This case be DISMISSED without prejudice. 

3. No costs be taxed. 

It is further 

ORDERED that on or before October 27, 2016, the parties may file an objection to this 

Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the factual findings and legal 

conclusions in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which a party objects. Frivolous, 

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

Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and recommendations in the 

Magistrate Judge’s report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of 

factual findings and legal issues covered in the report and shall “waive the right to challenge on 

appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions” except upon 

grounds of plain error if necessary in the interests of justice. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust 

Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 

790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).

Done, this 13th day of October 2016.

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00940-WHA-WC Document 28 Filed 10/13/16 Page 2 of 2