Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00420/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00420-0/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 

KENNETH STEWART, #277 718, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-420-MHT 

 ) [WO] 

WARDEN KARLA JONES, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the Easterling Correctional Facility in Clio, Alabama, 

filed this complaint on June 15, 2015. Subsequently, and prior to the filing of an answer and 

special report, Plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw the complaint. Doc. No. 6. 

 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A), “the plaintiff may dismiss an action 

without a court order by filing: (i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either 

an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all 

parties who have appeared in the action.” “Ordinarily, a Rule 41(a)(1)(A) voluntary dismissal is 

effective immediately and requires no action by the district court.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. 

Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 409 (11th Cir. 1999). Because a voluntary dismissal is selfexecuting, it may precede any analysis of subject-matter jurisdiction and moots all pending 

motions. Id. 

 A plaintiff may properly effect a Rule 41(a)(1)(A) dismissal by filing a “notice of 

dismissal.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Although Plaintiff designates his filing as a “motion” 

to withdraw, the court notes that no answer or motion for summary judgment has been filed by 

Defendants and Plaintiff may dismiss his action as a matter of right. The court, therefore, will 

Case 2:15-cv-00420-MHT-WC Document 7 Filed 07/09/15 Page 1 of 3
2 

construe the “motion” to withdraw the complaint as a “notice” of dismissal within the meaning 

of Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). See Matthews v. Gaither, 902 F.2d 877, 880 (11th Cir. 1990) 

(citation omitted) (“[t]he fact that a notice of dismissal is styled “motion to dismiss” rather than 

“notice of dismissal” is without consequence.”). 

 In light of the foregoing, the court concludes this case is due to be dismissed without 

prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). 

 Accordingly, it is 

 ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to withdraw complaint (Doc. No. 6) is considered a 

notice of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). 

 It is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case be DISMISSED 

without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). See Doc. No. 6. 

 It is further 

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said 

Recommendation on or before July 23, 2015. Any objections filed must specifically 

identify the findings in 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 recommendations in 

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

District Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on 

appeal factual findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except 

upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 

Case 2:15-cv-00420-MHT-WC Document 7 Filed 07/09/15 Page 2 of 3
3 

(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 of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to 

the close of business on September 30, 1981). 

Done this 9th day of July, 2015. 

 /s/ Wallace Capel, Jr. 

 WALLACE CAPEL, JR. 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-00420-MHT-WC Document 7 Filed 07/09/15 Page 3 of 3