Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02084/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02084-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2084

___________

Bola Ajiwoju, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Carolyn Cottrell, Regional *

Director Webster University; * [UNPUBLISHED]

James Staley, Associate Vice *

President; James McGraw; Gregory *

Perlstein; Richard Sherman; *

Webster University, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: August 3, 2007

Filed: August 16, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Bola Ajiwoju appeals from the district court’s1

 denial of his motions to set aside

the stipulated dismissal of his action against Webster University (Webster). We

affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-2084 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2007 Entry ID: 3341992
-2-

More than a year after commencing the lawsuit, and after dismissing the

individual defendants, Ajiwoju filed with the district court a Settlement and Release

Agreement governed by Missouri law, and a Stipulation of Dismissal with prejudice

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii). In a series of motions he

acknowledged that he had agreed with Webster to settle the case, but he asserted that

the settlement was unfavorable and fraudulent and he was “refusing” it, he asked the

court to set aside the stipulation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b),

and he requested more money. Webster opposed the motions on jurisdictional and

other grounds.

The district court found that Ajiwoju participated in settlement discussions with

Webster, had an opportunity to read and ask questions about the settlement

documents, and signed the agreement and stipulation. It further found that the

agreement clearly released Webster from all claims and did not require court approval.

The court thus denied Ajiwoju’s motions, determining that there was no basis for Rule

60(b) relief and that it lacked jurisdiction to set aside the stipulated dismissal. On

appeal, Ajiwoju argues that the stipulation should be vacated and his lawsuit reinstated

because he did not sign the stipulation or agree to the terms of settlement, and because

he was incompetent to enter into a settlement agreement. He argues alternatively that

the court should have entered a dismissal without prejudice.

The decision to grant or deny a motion under Rule 60(b) lies with the district

court and is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Young, 806 F.2d

805, 806 (8th Cir. 1986) (per curiam). Rule 60(b) provides for “extraordinary relief

which may be granted only upon an adequate showing of exceptional circumstances.”

Id. A voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) is effective upon entry and does

not require judicial approval. See Gardiner v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 747 F.2d 1180,

1189 (8th Cir. 1984). Because such a dismissal is effected without a court order,

“there is no final order or judgment from which a party may seek relief under Rule

Appellate Case: 06-2084 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2007 Entry ID: 3341992
-3-

60(b),” and the district court thus lacks jurisdiction to grant a Rule 60(b) motion. See

Scher v. Ashcroft, 960 F.2d 1053, 1053 (8th Cir. 1992) (unpublished per curiam). 

The record belies Ajiwoju’s claims on appeal that he did not sign the stipulation

or agree to the terms of settlement. Nor does the record support the claim that he

lacked the mental capacity to enter into the agreement. See Brown v. United Missouri

Bank, N.A., 78 F.3d 382, 386 (8th Cir. 1996) (test for competency to contract under

Missouri law). The stipulation of dismissal was self-effectuating, and it expressly

provided for dismissal with prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii) (“an action may

be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court . . . by filing a stipulation of

dismissal signed by all parties”; unless otherwise stated in stipulation, dismissal is

without prejudice). Thus, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion

in denying Ajiwoju’s Rule 60(b) motions. 

Accordingly, we affirm. We also deny Ajiwoju’s motion in opposition to

Webster’s corporate disclosure statement.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2084 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/16/2007 Entry ID: 3341992