Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00770/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00770-8/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

ERIC WILSON, #187180, )

 )

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-770-WKW

)

JEFFERSON DUNN, et al, )

 )

 Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

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

Eric Wilson, a state inmate, in which he challenges the conditions of confinement to which he was 

previously subjected at the Draper Correctional Facility. On July 20, 2016, the plaintiff filed a 

document in which he seeks dismissal of this case (Doc. No. 30). The court construes this 

document to contain a motion to dismiss the instant civil action. 

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

is due to be granted and that this case should 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 (11th Cir. 1986). Simple 

litigation costs, inconvenience to the defendants, and/or the prospect of a second or subsequent 

Case 2:15-cv-00770-WKW-TFM Document 33 Filed 08/04/16 Page 1 of 3
2

lawsuit do not constitute clear legal prejudice. Id. See also Durham v. Florida East Coast Railway 

Company, 385 F.2d 366 (5th Cir. 1967). After a thorough review of the record, the court concludes 

that this case is due to be dismissed without prejudice on 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 

ORDERED that on or before August 22, 2016 the plaintiff may file objections to the 

Recommendation. The plaintiff must specifically identify the factual findings and legal 

conclusions in the Recommendation to which objection is made; frivolous, conclusive, or general 

objections will not be considered. Failure to file written objections to the Magistrate Judge’s 

findings and recommendations in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) shall 

bar a de novo determination by the District Court of legal and factual issues covered in the 

Recommendation and waives the right of the plaintiff to challenge on appeal the district court’s 

order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions accepted or adopted by the District 

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

Case 2:15-cv-00770-WKW-TFM Document 33 Filed 08/04/16 Page 2 of 3
3

404 (5th Cir. 1982); 11TH CIR. R. 3-1. See Stein v. Lanning 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). 

DONE this 4th day of August, 2016.

/s/Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00770-WKW-TFM Document 33 Filed 08/04/16 Page 3 of 3