Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00559/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00559-5/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

RICKY LEE WEBB, JR., #246707, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-CV-559-MEF

) [WO]

)

OFFICER WILKINS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

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

Ricky Lee Webb,Jr. [“Webb”], an indigentstate inmate, challenging actionstaken against

him during his confinement at the Easterling Correctional Facility. The defendants filed

answers and special reports, supported by relevant evidentiary materials, in which they

addressed the plaintiff’s claims for relief. On October 18, 2012, Webb filed a “Notice of

Plaintiff’s Abandonment of Claims” in which he seeks “to dismiss all claims involving

Alabama Dept. of Corrections or those employed by Alabama Dept. of Corrections that is

currently before this District Court ... which the Plaintiff has filed.” Doc. No. 34 at 1. In

support of his request for dismissal, Webb advises that he “no longer wishes to pursue ...

any claims whatsoever Plaintiff has” lodged against state correctional officials in the civil

complaints pending before this court. Id. The court therefore construes this document as

Case 2:12-cv-00559-MEF-SRW Document 35 Filed 10/25/12 Page 1 of 4
a motion to dismiss.

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

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

II. DISCUSSION

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

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.

III. 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

2

Case 2:12-cv-00559-MEF-SRW Document 35 Filed 10/25/12 Page 2 of 4
ORDERED that on or before November 9, 2012, the parties may file objections to

this Recommendation. Any objections filed must clearly identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge'sRecommendation 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

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 October, 2012.

th

/s/ Susan Russ Walker

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 2:12-cv-00559-MEF-SRW Document 35 Filed 10/25/12 Page 3 of 4
4

Case 2:12-cv-00559-MEF-SRW Document 35 Filed 10/25/12 Page 4 of 4